ArticleOdontology2026
Mechanical and surface properties of resin-based materials for permanent use fabricated by subtractive, additive, and hybrid manufacturing techniques.
Article in Odontology, 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
This in vitro study evaluated the flexural strength, elastic modulus, microhardness, and surface roughness of restorative materials fabricated using subtractive (SM, CAD/CAM milled control), additive (AM-DLP and AM-LCD), and hybrid (HM-LCD) manufacturing approaches. Grandio Disc was used as the reference baseline for the SM group, whereas VarseoSmile TriniQ was used for the AM and HM groups. Additive manufacturing groups included both DLP and LCD technologies to evaluate the influence of printing system. Standardized bar-shaped specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) were prepared according to ISO 4049:2019 for flexural testing, while disk-shaped specimens (15 mm in diameter × 1 mm in thickness) were used for Vickers microhardness measurements. Flexural strength, elastic modulus, and microhardness were measured, and surface roughness (Ra, Rz) was assessed. Manufacturing method significantly affected flexural strength, elastic modulus, and microhardness (p < 0.001), with the SM CAD/CAM control group exhibiting the highest values, followed by AM-LCD and AM-DLP, while the HM-LCD group showed the lowest values. Microhardness was highest in SM, with AM and HM groups showing similar values. Surface roughness (Ra) was higher in the additive groups (AM-DLP: 0.36 ± 0.07 μm; AM-LCD: 0.36 ± 0.01 μm) compared with the SM (0.27 ± 0.04 μm) and HM-LCD (0.29 ± 0.04 μm) groups. For Rz, the additive manufacturing groups showed higher values than the HM-LCD group (p < 0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between the SM group and either the additive or hybrid groups. Both manufacturing method and material-related factors influenced the mechanical and surface properties of resin-based restorative materials. The SM group served as a clinically relevant reference baseline, while the inclusion of two different printing technologies allowed a comprehensive comparison of vat-photopolymerization systems.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295532What 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.