ArticleScientific reports2025
Correlation of three wear testing methods and surface roughness analysis in 3D-printed crown materials.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Tribological Performance of CAM-Processed Interim Dental Restoration Materials: Effects of 3D Printing, Milling, and Post-Processing on Wear and Surface Topography.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate and correlate the wear resistance of three additively manufactured dental restorative materials using three wear test methods. ball-on-disc, block-on-ring, and linear reciprocation. Three polished or glazed restorative materials were divided into four groups and subjected to wear testing under 49 N and 70 N loads, submerged in artificial saliva to simulate 48 months of in vivo wear. Vertical loss, step-height, surface roughness and friction coefficient were recorded. Correlation and statistical analyses were conducted. Ball-on-disc and reciprocative methods exhibited an overall weak positive correlation, while reciprocation vs. block-on-ring had weak to negative correlations. Three-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of material type on vertical loss values (P < 0.03). Reciprocation caused higher surface roughness for Crowntec Plus and VarseoSmile Plus (P < 0.05), but not for MFH C&B (P > 0.05). Friction coefficient remained clinically acceptable across all methods. Increased load (49 N to 70 N) minimally impacted wear but affected surface roughness. Materials exhibited varying wear performance based on the testing method used. Weak correlations were observed across wear tests in most instances, with increases in load having minimal impact on wear outcomes and variable impact on surface roughness depending on the testing method.
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.