ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Comparison of physico-mechanical properties of 3D-printed resins used as permanent indirect restoration materials.
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. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
Objective: To compare the physico-mechanical properties (microhardness, surface roughness, and flexural strength) of permanent 3D-printed dental resins with those of a resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) block and a composite resin. Methods: Four groups were tested: composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic), resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM block (Cerasmart), and two 3D-printed resins (Saremco Crowntec, VarseoSmile Crown Plus). Disk- and bar-shaped specimens were prepared according to ISO standards. Microhardness (Vickers test), surface roughness (profilometer), and flexural strength (three-point bending test) were evaluated. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests ( Results: Cerasmart showed the highest microhardness (85.53 ± 3.97) and flexural strength (184.45 ± 9.42), while Saremco Crowntec exhibited the lowest microhardness (38.63 ± 2.14). Clearfil Majesty had the highest surface roughness (1.24 ± 0.35). Although the measured flexural strength values of 3D-printed resins exceeded the ISO 4049 minimum threshold, several samples were close to or below the limit. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, 3D-printed permanent resins exhibited mechanical properties comparable to conventional restorative materials in certain parameters, although inferior hardness values were observed compared to CAD/CAM blocks. Nevertheless, the present findings should be interpreted with caution, and further long-term clinical investigations are necessary before translating these results into clinical practice.
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.