ArticleCureus2026
An In Vitro Comparison of the Compression Resistance and Tear Strength of Interocclusal Recording Materials After Immersion in a Chemical Disinfectant.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
Aim The purpose of the study is to evaluate the compression resistance and tear strength of interocclusal recording materials after immersion in a chemical disinfectant. Methods A total of 120 specimens were prepared, with 30 samples for each material type. These were further divided into two subgroups: a control group (no disinfection) and an experimental group (subjected to disinfection), with 15 specimens in each experimental group. The specimens in the experimental group were immersed in a commonly used chemical disinfectant, such as 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 min, while the control group was stored in a dry environment under ideal conditions without exposure to any disinfectant. The specimens were made into cylindrical and dumbbell shapes for compressive and tear strength testing, respectively, using a universal testing machine, and the values obtained were subjected to statistical analysis. Results The findings were analysed by ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test in SPSS version 27.0 (IBM Inc., Armonk, New York). The results revealed that polyvinyl siloxane (PVS) exhibited the highest compression resistance and tear strength, both before and after disinfection, demonstrating superior mechanical stability. Aluwax showed moderate mechanical performance, with slight changes after immersion. In contrast, zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) exhibited the lowest resistance, showing significant degradation in both properties post-immersion. Statistical analysis confirmed a significant impact of disinfection on material performance (p<0.05), particularly for ZOE. Conclusion Among the tested materials, PVS demonstrated the best overall performance, maintaining its mechanical integrity post-disinfection, making it the preferred choice for clinical applications requiring durability and accuracy. Aluwax retained moderate properties, while ZOE was the least reliable due to its significant degradation after immersion. These findings emphasize the need for careful material selection in prosthodontics to ensure clinical reliability while maintaining effective infection control.
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.