ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of wear behavior of 3D printed permanent resin, milled zirconia, and primary tooth enamel on antagonist primary canines: in vitro 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundData comparing the wear of 3D printed permanent resin (PR) and milled zirconia (Z) to that of primary tooth enamel are limited. This study aimed to investigate the wear behavior of two materials and their effect on antagonist primary canine, in comparison with primary tooth enamel.
methodsMilled monolithic Z (IPS e.max ZirCAD Prime Esthetic, Ivoclar), and PR (Permanent Crown Resin, Formlabs), and primary central incisor enamel (PCIE) (per group n = 15) as the control group were included in the study. Z and PR were polished by intraoral polishing set (Optragloss, Ivoclar Vivadent). Two-body wear tests were performed in a chewing simulator for all specimens, with primary canines used as antagonists (50 N, 1.2 × 10⁵ cycles, 1.56 Hz, 5/55°C). Wear volume and wear depth were assessed by overlapping the data before and after the chewing test with a software program (Geomagic Control X). Vickers hardness tests were performed (n = 10) for both materials. Data were analyzed statistically with one-way ANOVA (p < 0.05).
resultsFor each group, n = 9 specimens were able to complete 120,000 cycles. The results showed that the PR exhibited the highest volume loss, while Z had the lowest wear depth (p < 0.05). When we examined the antagonist teeth, the highest volume loss was observed in the Z group (p < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in wear depth (p = 0.079). The Vickers hardness of Z was significantly higher than that of the PR (p < 0.05).
conclusionBoth highly polished monolithic Z and PR demonstrated comparable antagonist wear to that of PCIE; however, while PR showed a similar wear resistance to PCIE, Z exhibited the highest resistance overall. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: PR demonstrated wear resistance similar to primary tooth enamel under the conditions of this study, suggesting it may be a suitable option for pediatric restorations where antagonist wear is a primary concern. However, additional properties require further evaluation.
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.