ArticleBMC oral health2026
A comparative evaluation of the flexural strength and surface hardness of CAD/CAM fabricated and conventional denture bases.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate the flexural strength and surface hardness of denture base resins that have been milled using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing milling (CAD/CAM) and conventional heat-polymerized denture base resins (HP).
methodsEighty samples were made using CAD/CAM resin material (Polident CAD/CAM and Interdent CC discs) and conventional heat-polymerised acrylic resin (HP) (IvoBase CAD and PMMA). Based on the denture base material, the samples were categorised into eight groups: each group (n = 10), flexural strength (n = 40), surface hardness (n = 40). Both the surface hardness and flexural strength were evaluated using the Vickers hardness test and the three-point flexure test, respectively. A statistical analysis with a significance level of α = 0.05 was used to analyze the data.
resultsCompared with HP resins, milled CAD/CAM resins demonstrated significantly higher flexural strength and surface hardness (p < 0.001). The flexural strength of MHC 72.72 ± 5.95 is significantly lower than that of IHC 78.96 ± 3.36, PCC 108.59 ± 6.51, and VCC 99.88 ± 6.05 MPa. Surface hardness is significantly lower in MHC (18.40 ± 2.28 VHN) than in the other groups: IHC (21.30 ± 2.40 VHN), PCC (31.07 ± 2.07 VHN), and VCC (27.09 ± 1.55 VHN).
conclusionCompared with heat-polymerized acrylic resin, milled CAD/CAM resins performed exceptionally well in terms of flexural and surface mechanical properties.
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.