ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Comparative Radiopacity of Additively Manufactured Permanent and Temporary Resins and Conventional Resin-Based Composites.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate whether radiopacity differs among additively manufactured permanent resins, temporary resins, and conventional resin-based composites at clinically relevant thicknesses. MATERIALS AND
methodsEight dental materials were evaluated and categorized into four groups: additively manufactured permanent resins (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, Saremco Print CrownTec), additively manufactured temporary resins (Arma Resin TEMP Teeth, Alias Temp C&B), conventional self-cure resin-based composites (Stela Automix, Stela Capsule), and conventional light-cure resin-based composites (Gradia Posterior, G-ænial Injectable). Rectangular specimens (5 × 5 mm) were fabricated at two standardized thicknesses (1 and 2 mm) (n = 10). Extracted human tooth sections and a 21-step aluminum wedge were used as reference standards. Radiographic images were obtained using a digital intraoral radiography system, and radiopacity values were measured in mmAl using ImageJ software. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn-Bonferroni, and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences in radiopacity were observed among the tested materials (p < 0.05). Additively manufactured temporary resins demonstrated the lowest radiopacity values, whereas conventional resin-based composites exhibited the highest radiopacity. Permanent additively manufactured resins showed intermediate radiopacity values. Increasing specimen thickness from 1 to 2 mm significantly increased radiopacity values for all materials (p < 0.001). Several temporary additively manufactured materials presented radiopacity values lower than dentin and enamel.
conclusionThe findings suggest that radiopacity varies significantly among restorative materials and is influenced by specimen thickness. In particular, the relatively low radiopacity of some additively manufactured resins may limit their radiographic detectability, which should be considered during material selection in clinical practice. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Radiopacity differences among restorative materials may influence the detection of recurrent caries and restoration margins. Lower radiopacity of some additively manufactured resins highlights the importance of careful material selection for accurate radiographic diagnosis.
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.