ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Fracture resistance and survival rates of chairside, milled, and 3D-printed provisional three-unit FDPs with two cements before and after masticatory simulation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare in-vitro changes and properties of conventional chairside-dispensed, 3D-printed and milled interim fixed dental protheses using two different cements. MATERIALS AND
methodsIdentical three-unit fixed dental prostheses (FDP) were fabricated from conventional dispensed (1x), milled (1x) and 3D-printed (2x) materials and cemented onto standardized Co-Cr-Mo alloy molars using either conventional or resin cement. Ten FDPs of each group were stored in distilled water and artificially aged for a simulated wear period of 5 years (1.2 × 10
resultsSurvival rates: All FDPs made from conventional and subtractive materials survived TCML, while those made from additive materials did not. Fracture resistance: The median of the fracture resistance values for conventional material was 1096 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1117 N (TCML, conventional cementation), 1762 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 1400 N (TCML adhesive cementation). Significant differences were observed between conventional and additive materials, but not for the subtractive material. The median of the fracture resistance values for subtractive material was 988 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1065 N (TCML, conventional cementation), 1486 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 1204 N (TCML adhesive cementation). Significant differences were found between subtractive and additive materials. The median of the fracture resistance values of the additive materials was 953 N and 754 N (24 h water storage, conventional cementation), 1090 N and 876 N (24 h water storage, adhesive cementation) and 706 N and 373 N (TCML adhesive cementation), showing significant differences both among them and compared to the other materials.
conclusionConventionally and subtractively fabricated temporaries do not show significant differences in fracture resistance, although they do outperform additively fabricated temporaries, which exhibit significantly lower fracture resistance. Since none of the tested additively manufactured specimens survived TCML when cemented with Temp Bond NE, premature failure of these materials can be expected in clinical use. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study informs clinicians on the fracture resistance of chairside, milled, and 3D-printed provisional FDPs with different cements, aiding material selection to improve durability and predictability of provisional restorations in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42449024What 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.