ArticleOdontology2026
Influence of printing orientation on the mechanical and surface characteristics of a novel 3D-printed definitive resin-based composite.
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 study evaluated the effects of different printing orientations on the mechanical properties and surface roughness of a 3D-printed definitive resin-based composite (RBC) material. Bar shaped samples were fabricated from a 3D-printed RBC (VarseoSmile TriniQ) using three different build orientations (0°, 45°, and 90°) and lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD). Flexural strength and elastic modulus were evaluated using a three point bending test. Surface microhardness was assessed with a Vickers hardness test, and surface roughness was measured using a contact profilometer. Following mechanical testing, the sample surfaces and fractured regions were further examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) for topographic and fractographic evaluation. Statistical analysis was performed at α = 0.05 using one way ANOVA, with post hoc comparisons conducted using the Tamhane test. Significant differences were observed among the tested materials for all evaluated parameters (p < 0.001). IPS group demonstrated superior mechanical properties and lower surface roughness compared to the 3D-printed RBCs. Within the 3D-printed groups, the 0° build orientation exhibited higher flexural strength, whereas the 90° orientation showed increased surface hardness. Elastic modulus and surface roughness were not significantly influenced by printing orientation (p > 0.05). SEM analyses supported the quantitative findings by revealing a homogeneous and compact microstructure in IPS group and orientation-dependent surface and fracture features in the 3D-printed RBC groups. IPS e.max CAD demonstrated superior mechanical performance. The 0° orientation improved flexural strength, while the 90° orientation enhanced surface hardness, suggesting that build orientation should be selected according to the intended clinical function.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42380703What 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.