ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Physicochemical and Mechanical Characterization of Two Self-Curing Composite Resins for Direct Provisional Prostheses.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Wear resistance, microhardness and compressive strength of high filled flowable composite resins.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this experimental in vitro study, both the physicochemical and mechanical properties of two self-curing dental composites were compared: Structur 3 (based on Bis-GMA) and Visco III (based on Bis-EMA), which are used for the direct fabrication of temporary dental prostheses. The properties evaluated included flexural strength, toughness, hydrophilicity (measured using the contact angle), density, microhardness, water absorption, and wear and scratch resistance. In terms of flexural strength, Structur 3 exhibited a higher value (127 ± 16 MPa) than Visco III (103 ± 25 MPa). In addition, the dental composite based on Bis-GMA showed a higher toughness (36.52 ± 9.20 mJ) compared to 16.55 ± 7.55 mJ for the dental composite based on Bis-EMA) and a greater displacement to fracture (2.50 ± 0.38 mm compared to 1.72 ± 0.38 mm). However, Visco III showed a higher microhardness (17.045 ± 0.93 HV0.5) compared to Structur 3 (8.10 ± 0.76 HV0.5) and a lower water absorption (11.2 ± 0.4 µg/mm
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.