ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the flexural and repair bond strengths of 3D-printed temporary restorations.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to evaluate the early bending strength of 3D-printed temporary restorations and the repair bond strength after different surface treatments.
methodsFifty samples of 25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm in size were produced from methylmethacrylate-free photopolymer resin temporary material (GC TempPrint, GC, Japan) with a 3D printer (NextDent, 3D Systems, Netherlands). The samples were cleaned, polymerized, finished, and stored at 37 °C with 100% humidity for 24 h before testing. The initial flexural strength was evaluated via a 3-point bending test on a universal testing machine (AG-IS, Shimadzu, Japan). The broken samples were randomly divided into 5 groups for different surface treatments. In the control group, no surface treatment was applied to the fracture surfaces (Group C). In the other groups, sandblasting (Group G), sandblasting with a silane-containing agent (GS), sandblasting with 50 μm Al2O3 particles (S), sandblasting with 50 μm Al2O3 particles and a silane-containing agent (SS) were applied to the samples. The fractured surfaces were repaired with a high-filling flowable composite (G-Aenial Universal Flo, GC, Japan) and polymerized with an LED light device for 20 s. The bond strength was evaluated via a 3-point fracture test on a universal testing device. The data obtained were examined with one-way ANOVA and a paired sample t-test. The surface treatments applied to the fractured surfaces were examined via stereomicroscopy (Olympus microscope BX50, Japan).
resultsThere was no significant difference in early-stage fracture strength among the groups (P > 0.05). There was a statistically significant difference in the repair bond strengths (P < 0.05). The highest repair bond strength was obtained in Group SS, and the lowest was obtained in Group C.
conclusionsSilane-containing agent application after sandblasting with Al₂O₃ was found to be the most effective method for repairing 3D-printed photopolymer resin temporary materials without methyl methacrylate.
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.