ArticleBMC oral health2025
Wear resistance and surface roughness assessment of CAD/CAM graphene-reinforced PMMA versus conventional PMMA crowns.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of endocrown-retained fixed dental prosthesis design on marginal integrity and fracture resistance.The journal of advanced prosthodontics · 2026Article
- Marginal fit, internal adaptation, and thermocycling effects on the mechanical and optical properties of graphene CAD-CAM and zirconia crowns for primary molars: An in-vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
backgroundTo evaluate the graphene-reinforced PMMA wear resistance and surface roughness compared to PMMA after accelerated artificial aging.
methodsTwenty molar-shaped crowns were fabricated (n = 10): graphene-reinforced PMMA (G) and PMMA (P), and an intraoral scanner digitized them. After thermomechanical aging, equivalent to 6 months of clinical service, the same scanner rescanned each crown. 3D analysis software calculated the wear loss volume of tested crowns. Twenty virtual discs were designed and milled from the two tested materials (n = 10). The discs were subjected to thermocycling, equivalent to 6 months of clinical service. Before and after thermocycling, a non-contact optical profilometer quantified the surface topography of all discs for assessment of surface roughness (Ra). Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Student’s t, and Bonferroni’s post-hoc tests (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsBoth 2D and 3D analysis approaches showed no statistically significant difference in surface wear between the P and G groups (P-value = 0.053, Effect size = 1.268; P-value = 0.649, Effect size = 0.271), respectively. Surface roughness did not differ statistically between the two materials independent of thermocycling (P-value = 0.172, Effect size = 0.150). Mean Ra decreased significantly after thermocycling in both groups regardless of material type (P-value = 0.035, Effect size = 0.320). For PMMA, the mean Ra did not change significantly after thermocycling. While mean Ra decreased significantly following the thermocycling of graphene-reinforced PMMA.
conclusionsBoth conventional PMMA and graphene-reinforced PMMA exhibited comparable performance in terms of surface wear resistance and surface roughness, regardless of artificial aging.
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.