ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Acrylic-based occlusal device materials - the influence of manufacturing techniques on material properties and the propensity for biofilm formation.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The material composition, manufacturing system, and post-processing steps used to fabricate acrylic-based occlusal devices may affect their clinical performance. This study aims to assess how manufacturing techniques and post-processing treatments influence the material properties of acrylic-based occlusal devices and the propensity of Materials and methods: Based on applied manufacturing technique and post-processing treatment, disc‑shaped specimens were manufactured using four 3D printing workflows (Splint 2.0‑Asiga Flash/Otoflash (OF), and LT Clear‑Form Cure/OF), one milling workflow (Therapon), and one autopolymerization workflow (PalaXtreme). Water sorption and solubility, surface free energy (SFE), average surface roughness, and Vickers hardness were tested across these workflows. The ATCC 700610 Results and conclusion: The Therapon and PalaXtreme workflows exhibited the lowest solubility, suggesting that these materials have the lowest release of material components in water. The Splint 2.0 workflows exhibited the lowest water sorption, indicating enhanced material integrity in humid conditions. Therapon showed the highest Vickers hardness, followed by PalaXtreme. The lower hardness of the print materials may make them susceptible to wear, which may not be optimal for treating patients with bruxism. No significant differences in SFE were observed between workflows. Low roughness values across all workflows indicate good polishability, which can enhance resistance to bacterial adhesion. In the 72-hour biofilm experiment, the Therapon workflow exhibited the most biofilm formation on material surfaces while PalaXtreme showed the least (
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.