ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of the basic physical properties of a 3D printed experimental soft liner versus conventional soft relining materials.
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
backgroundWith the advent of additive manufacturing, 3D-printed materials have emerged as promising alternatives. 3D printing technology enables the single-step fabrication of both denture bases and soft liners, addressing a clinical gap by allowing the soft liner to be directly and patient-specifically integrated onto the denture base. However, their physical properties must be thoroughly evaluated before clinical implementation. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the color stability, surface roughness, and Shore A hardness of an experimental 3D-printed soft liner with two established materials: a short-term acrylic-based liner (GC) and a long-term silicone-based liner (UP).
methodsThis in vitro study compared the color stability, surface roughness, and Shore A hardness of an experimental 3D-printed soft liner with two conventional materials: GC (acrylic-based, short-term) and UP (silicone-based, long-term). Standardized specimens (n = 10 per group) were immersed in distilled water and coffee at 37 °C for 1 week, 1 month, and 3 months. Color change (ΔE₀₀) was measured using a spectrophotometer, surface roughness (Ra) with a profilometer, and hardness with a Shore A durometer. Data were analyzed using one-way and repeated measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc tests (p < 0.05).
resultsThe 3D-printed soft liner showed significantly higher Shore A hardness compared to both GC and UP materials across all time intervals. In terms of color stability, the 3D-printed material performed similarly to GC but was inferior to UP. Surface roughness analysis revealed that the 3D-printed liner was rougher than UP, which maintained the smoothest surface and greatest color stability overall throughout the testing period.
conclusionsWhile the 3D-printed experimental soft liner demonstrated clinically acceptable physical properties, particularly in hardness, its increased surface roughness and moderate color stability suggest that further formulation improvements are needed. Enhancements in softness and smoothness would be necessary for the material to become a viable alternative to conventional soft liners in routine prosthodontic practice.
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.