ArticlePolymers2026
Effect of Fiber and Metal Reinforcement on the Flexural Properties of Printed and Conventional Provisional Restorative Materials.
Article in Polymers, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
(1) Background: Provisional restorations play a crucial role in maintaining oral function and must exhibit adequate mechanical properties, particularly fracture resistance, to ensure structural integrity throughout the provisional phase. The aim of this study was to compare the flexural strength and modulus of materials used for provisional dental prostheses, with and without fiber or metal reinforcement. (2) Methods: Standardized specimens (2 × 2 × 25 mm) were fabricated from an acrylic resin (Unifast LC), a 3D-printed resin (NextDent C&B), and a bis-acryl resin (Luxatemp Fluorescence). For each material, four experimental subgroups were established: no reinforcement, two types of glass fiber reinforcement (EverStick C&B and EverStick Post NET), and metal reinforcement. Specimens were subjected to a three-point bending test. Flexural strength and flexural modulus were analyzed using a two-way, non-parametric ANOVA with the aligned rank transform. The significance level was set at 0.05. (3) Results: Material type and reinforcement strategy significantly affected flexural strength and flexural modulus. Fiber reinforcement with EverStick C&B yielded the highest values across all materials, particularly in the acrylic resin. Metal reinforcement showed moderate improvements, whereas EverStick NET had limited or no effect and reduced strength in the bis-acryl resin. Reinforced specimens exhibited altered fracture behavior, preventing complete separation after failure. (4) Conclusions: Fiber reinforcement, particularly with EverStick C&B, significantly enhances the flexural strength and modulus of provisional materials. The reinforcement performance is dependent on its type and material interaction, modifying fracture behavior by preventing complete separation.
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.