ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Effect of denture tooth manufacturing and adhesive materials on bond strength of 3D-printed denture base.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: 3D printing enhances denture fabrication, but the bond between printed teeth and bases is often weaker than traditional methods. This study investigates the effect of tooth-adhesive combinations on bond strength to enhance clinical reliability in digital dentistry. Material and Methods: Forty-eight cylindrical 3D-printed denture bases were bonded with either 3D-printed (PT) or milled (MT) teeth using three bonding materials: NextDent (ND), Super-Bond (SUP), and Unifast Trad (UNI)(n=8/group). The PT-ND group served as the control. Specimens were subjected to shear bond strength testing using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min, with a 4 mm shear pin, and failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. Results: Tooth type, bonding material, and their interaction significantly influenced bond strength (P<0.05). MT-UNI and MT-SUP demonstrated the highest values (92.33 ± 4.90 N; 87.34 ± 2.41 N), while MT-ND had the lowest (11.72 ± 1.94 N). Among PT groups, PT-SUP performed best (45.59 ± 3.47 N), followed by PT-ND (34.12 ± 3.38 N) and PT-UNI (23.68 ± 4.14 N). High-strength groups exhibited predominantly mixed failure (MT-SUP, MT-UNI, PT-SUP), while lower-strength groups showed adhesive failure. (MT-ND, PT-UNI). Conclusions: Bond strength is influenced by both tooth material and bonding agent. From the results, Unifast Trad is optimal for milled teeth; Superbond is best suited for printed teeth. Material selection is critical for improving durability and chairside efficiency in digital prosthodontics.
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.