ArticleBMC oral health2026
Surface roughness and wear resistance of ormocer- versus methacrylate-based single-shade resin composites after simulated tooth brushing.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate and compare the surface roughness and wear resistance of ormocer-based and methacrylate-based single-shade resin composites after simulated tooth brushing.
methodsTwo single-shade composites; an ormocer-based composite (Admira Fusion X-tra, Voco) and a methacrylate-based composite (Omnichroma, Tokuyama), were used in this study. From each material, 20 disc-shaped specimens (3-mm thickness, 5-mm diameter) were prepared (n = 20). Specimens were subjected to 100,000 cycles of tooth brushing with a Colgate Max Fresh dentifrice (Colgate-Palmolive). The surface roughness was assessed before and after tooth brushing, and the changes in weight were determined after tooth brushing. Additional two specimens from each composite underwent scanning electron microscope (SEM) imaging. Paired and unpaired Student’s t-tests were used for statistical analysis (p < 0.05).
resultsSurface roughness of both tested composites increased significantly after brushing (p = 0.002 for ormocer-based composite and p = 0.006 for methacrylate-based composite). However, there was no statistically significant difference among the two tested composites regarding surface roughness before brushing (p = 0.928) or after brushing (p = 0.696). The weights of both tested composites decreased significantly after brushing (p = 0.001), and the amount of methacrylate-based composite wear was significantly higher than that of the ormocer-based composite (p < 0.001).
conclusionAfter simulated tooth brushing, both tested composites (ormocer-based and methacrylate-based) became rougher, whereas the ormocer-based composite exhibited greater wear resistance than did the methacrylate-based composite.
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.