ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2025
Influence of different post-polymerization methods on the dimensional accuracy of additively manufactured dental crowns.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Three-Dimensional Printed Materials for Definitive Ceramic and Resin Restorations: A Scoping Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the influence of different post-polymerization methods and types of polymerization units on the dimensional accuracy of additive manufactured (AM) permanent crown resins. Methods: Three crown materials were evaluated: two permanent restoration-indicated resins (Saremco print Crowntec and Varseosmile Crown Results: The SM crowns exhibited the highest accuracy (the lowest RMS) for both the intaglio (18.6 ± 0.9 µm) and marginal surfaces (32.5 ± 3 µm). AM crowns showed variable accuracy depending on the post-polymerization method. Crowns post-polymerized in glycerine generally demonstrated lower RMS values. The glass filler-reinforced resin composite (Crowntec) material consistently exhibited higher RMS values (89 ± 5.4 µm to 120 ± 8.1 µm) across all regions studied. Post-polymerization temperatures did not significantly impact the dimensional accuracy of any of the materials studied ( Conclusion: Using glycerine during post-polymerization, alongside the manufacturer's recommended polymerization unit, generally enhanced the dimensional accuracy of AM dental crowns. SM crowns demonstrated superior accuracy in the intaglio and marginal surfaces; however, no significant differences were observed in the interproximal compared to AM crowns. Clinical significance: Given the variety of available post-polymerization units and protocols, dental practitioners should consider their impact on the dimensional accuracy of AM dental crowns. Awareness of these effects can help to prevent issues with crown accuracy, including adaptation to preparations and the contact points. Furthermore, this study provides alternative post-polymerization methods for practitioners lacking access to the manufacturer's recommended equipment.
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.