ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society2026
Comparative evaluation of mechanical and physical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using milling, three-dimensional printing and conventional methods: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate and compare the mechanical and physical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials fabricated using milling, three-dimensional (3D) printing, and conventional methods. SETTINGS AND
designThis was a comparative in vitro study. MATERIALS AND
methodsSix different provisional resin materials, with two commercial brands representing each fabrication technique (milled resins including Sagemax and Ruthinium, 3D printed resins including Dionavi and Ackudent, and conventionally fabricated cold-cure resins including Dental Products of India (DPI) and Cool Temp) were tested. A total of 210 samples were prepared, 35 from each material, using their respective fabrication methods. Based on the properties to be evaluated, the 35 samples were further divided into 5 subgroups, each with 7 samples (n = 7). The cylindrical-shaped samples (4 mm × 6 mm) were subjected to tests for compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS). Rectangular samples (25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) were used to assess the flexural strength (FS) and the microhardness (MH). Additionally, disc-shaped samples (10 mm × 2 mm) were examined for physical properties, surface roughness (SR). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's tests were used.
resultsBoth milled and 3D printed resin groups demonstrated significantly higher CS and FS (P = 0.001) except with 3D Ackudent. Significantly higher DTS and MH (P = 0.001) were found with both the milling and control groups compared to the 3D-printed resin groups. Control groups exhibited the highest SR (P = 0.022) compared to both milling and 3D printed groups.
conclusionMilled provisional resins showed superior mechanical properties, with Sagemax showing the highest FS and MH, Ruthinium with the highest DTS. Both 3D printed resins exhibited the lowest DTS and MH, though 3D Dionavi showed higher CS compared to milled and conventional resins. The conventional resins showed lower FS than milled resins and 3D Dionavi but higher than 3D Ackudent. Both 3D printed and milled resins showed smoother surfaces than those of conventional provisional resins.
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.