ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Effect of food-simulating liquids on flexural strength, Vickers microhardness, and surface roughness of IPS e.max Press and CEREC Tessera.
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. 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
Background: Lithium disilicate ceramics are widely used for indirect restorations, yet their mechanical performance may be influenced by fabrication route and chemical challenge from foods and beverages. Objective: To compare the effects of food-simulating liquids (FSLs) on flexural strength, Vickers microhardness, and surface roughness of pressed lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) and Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) advanced lithium disilicate (CEREC Tessera). Materials and methods: One hundred fifty rectangular specimens were prepared using IPS e.max Press and CEREC Tessera ( Results: CEREC Tessera showed higher flexural strength than IPS e.max Press across conditions (control: 362.6 ± 15.4 vs 331.0 ± 8.5 MPa). Ethanol reduced strength in both materials, with the greatest reduction in 50% ethanol (238.0 ± 9.6 vs 147.4 ± 7.5 MPa). Across comparable conditions, CEREC Tessera also showed higher microhardness, while reliable Vickers measurements could not be obtained for ethanol-exposed IPS e.max Press specimens. Surface roughness increased after acidic and alcoholic exposure in both materials, although CEREC Tessera remained smoother overall (control: 0.06 ± 0.02 vs 0.67 ± 0.36 µm). Conclusion: CEREC Tessera demonstrated superior flexural strength, microhardness, and surface integrity compared with IPS e.max Press after exposure to FSLs, suggesting that fabrication route influences laboratory performance under chemical challenge.
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.