ArticleBMC oral health2026
Mechanical properties of dental restoration materials fabricated using 3D printing polymers and CAD/CAM hybrid blocks: a comparative 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. 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate and compare the mechanical properties of dental restorative materials fabricated using three-dimensional printing and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing hybrid composite resin blocks.
methodsFour restorative materials were tested: two three-dimensionally printed permanent resins (TC-80DP and C&B MFH) and two computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing nanohybrid composite resin blocks (Mazic Duro and Shofu Disk). A total of 120 specimens were prepared, consisting of rectangular bars for flexural testing and cubes for microhardness and wear resistance evaluations. Flexural strength and load-displacement behavior were measured using a universal testing machine. Flexural Toughness was estimated by calculating the area under the load-displacement curve. Volumetric wear loss was assessed after simulated mastication using a chewing simulator and three-dimensional scanning, and surface microhardness was determined with a Vickers hardness tester.
resultsThe three-dimensionally printed permanent resins demonstrated flexural strength comparable to that of the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing hybrid composite blocks. Among all materials, TC-80DP exhibited the greatest toughness. However, the hybrid composite blocks showed significantly higher surface microhardness and superior wear resistance compared with the three-dimensionally printed permanent resins.
conclusionsAlthough three-dimensionally printed permanent resins exhibited promising flexural strength and flexural toughness, their lower wear resistance and surface hardness indicate that further material improvements are necessary before they can be considered viable alternatives for long-term permanent dental restorations.
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.