ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Compressive and flexural strength of provisional crown materials fabricated by conventional and 3D printing techniques: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the mechanical properties of the new 3D Accuprint C&B resin against both conventional and other 3D-printed resins to determine its viability for provisional crown fabrication. Materials and methods: Three materials were selected for comparison: GC Tempron (conventional), 3D Accuprint C&B, and Freeprint Temp (3D-printed resins). Fifteen cylindrical specimens (6 mm × 4 mm) were prepared from each material for compressive strength testing, and fifteen rectangular specimens (25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm) were fabricated for flexural strength testing as per the manufacturer's instructions. Testing was performed using a universal testing machine. The recorded compressive and flexural strength values were statistically analyzed after confirming normality (Shapiro-Wilk test) and homogeneity (Levene's test). All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 25), with the level of significance set at p < 0.05. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA with Tukey's HSD test. Results: Significant intergroup differences were found for both compressive and flexural strength (p < 0.001). GC Tempron showed significantly lower values compared with both 3D printed materials (p < 0.001). Freeprint Temp and 3D Accuprint did not differ significantly (compressive strength, p = 0.84; flexural strength, p = 0.15). Conclusions: 3D Accuprint C&B demonstrated superior mechanical strength compared to GC Tempron and comparable properties to Freeprint Temp. These findings confirm its mechanical viability as a high-performance alternative, making it better suited for durable provisional restorations, particularly in cases involving high resistance to stress, parafunctional habits, or implant-supported prostheses.
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.