ArticleBMC oral health2025
Wear of interim resin materials manufactured by 3D printing and CAD/CAM milling following chewing simulation.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biting Down on Longevity: Correlating Microhardness, Nanoroughness, and Wear Resistance of Milled vs. 3D-Printed Dental Polymers.Polymers · 2026Article
- Comparison of wear behavior of 3D printed permanent resin, milled zirconia, and primary tooth enamel on antagonist primary canines: in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRecently introduced novel additively manufactured interim resins require in vitro investigation of their mechanical properties. The objective of the study is to assess the wear rates of four different interim resin materials using a chewing simulator for 1.5 months of dynamic loading.
methodsFour interim resin materials were assessed: (1) Liquid crystal displays (LCD) 3D printed (n = 8), (2) Digital light processing (DLP) 3D printed (n = 8) (3) Conventional autopolymerizing bis-acrylic (n = 8), (4) CAD/CAM milled interim resin materials. The specimens underwent 30,000 cycles, approximately equivalent to 1.5 months of chewing simulation. The volumetric loss (mm
resultsThe mean ± SD wear volume losses (mm3) following chewing simulation were 0.1394 ± 0.0810 for conventional resin, 0.1099 ± 0.0873 for milled resin, 0.0980 ± 0.1021 for DLP resin, and 0.0934 ± 0.0788 for LCD resin. Wear volume loss was not significantly different amongst interim materials (P > 0.05). The mean ± SD wear depths (mm) following chewing simulation were 0.4084 ± 0.01440 for conventional resin, 0.4343 ± 0.1115 for milled resin, 0.4546 ± 0.0349 for DLP resin, and 0.3954 ± 0.1051 for LCD resin. Wear depths were not significantly different amongst interim materials (P > 0.05).
conclusions3D printed and CAD/CAM milled resins had wear resistance comparable to conventional resin. Wear resistance after chewing simulation offers 3D printed resin a suitable interim restorative material for clinical use.
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.