ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Effect of Two Post-Curing Units on the Physico-Mechanical Properties of 3D-Printed Resins for Permanent Crown Fabrication.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Three-dimensional (3D) printing is increasingly used for the fabrication of definitive crowns; however, whether specific post-curing hardware is mandatory for clinical success remains a practical concern. This study provided a practical comparison evaluating the effect of two post-curing units on the biaxial flexural strength (BFS), Weibull modulus (m), Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), water sorption (WSP), and water solubility (WSL) of 3D-printed resins for permanent crowns, compared with a conventional resin composite. A total of 200 specimens were fabricated from two 3D-printed resins (Permanent Crown™ and CrownTec™) and a conventional resin composite (Filtek Universal Restorative™) used as a control. The 3D-printed specimens were post-cured using either a Formcure or an Otoflash G171 unit. WSP and WSL were measured after 90 days of water ageing, while BFS, HM, and EIT were evaluated after 24 h of storage using standardised methods. All materials exhibited WSP and WSL values within ISO limits, with the control group showing significantly higher values and superior mechanical properties. Among the 3D-printed resins, post-curing significantly affected only HM and EIT for Permanent Crown™ resin, with no significant differences in BFS. Overall, the tested 3D-printed resins demonstrated high processing stability across different curing protocols, suggesting that clinical performance remains consistent regardless of the post-curing unit used.
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.