ArticleBMC oral health2026
Fracture resistance and mode of failure of CAD/CAM milled versus 3D-printed resin composite inlays: an in vitro study.
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.
- A bio-based superhydrophobic pit and fissure sealant for enhanced stability and anticaries application.Materials today. Bio · 2026Article
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
objectiveThis study investigated the fracture resistance and mode of failure of CAD/CAM milled versus 3D printed resin composite inlays under the influence of thermocycling. MATERIALS AND
methodsBrilliant Crios CAD/CAM milled and Crowntec 3D printed resin composite materials were used in this study. Twenty sound freshly extracted human mandibular third molars were selected for this study and randomly divided based on manufacturing technique into two groups: CAD/CAM milled, and 3D printed resin composite inlays. A universal testing machine was used to estimate the fracture resistance, and the mode of failure was investigated for fractured specimens. Inferential statistics for evaluating and comparing milling and 3D-printed manufacturing techniques were carried out via independent samples t tests at the 0.05 significance level.
resultsWhile the 3D printing group recorded numerically higher fracture resistance, no statistically significant difference was found (p > 0.05). Evaluating the mode of failure of the CAD/CAM milling group specimens revealed that there was no significant difference between all the recorded failure modes (P > 0.05). On the other hand, a significant difference was revealed between the different recorded modes of failure in the 3D printing group (P < 0.05).
conclusionsBoth 3D-printed, and CAD/CAM milled resin inlays had comparable fracture resistance that exceeded the physiological masticatory force in molar region; however, most of the failure modes recorded for both materials were irreparable failures involving more than half of the tooth and extending below the CEJ. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: 3D printed resin composite material is a promising option in fabrication of indirect restorations with lower cost and more time saving. Long term clinical studies are recommended to evaluate clinical performance of 3D printed resin composite materials.
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.