ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of different finishing/polishing protocols and aging on flexural strength, roughness, and surface characteristics of definitive restorative materials for CAD/CAM.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of finishing/polishing and aging on the flexural strength, roughness, and surface characteristics of CAD/CAM restorative materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree CAD/CAM materials were tested: Nanoceramic resin (CR), Polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC), and Leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic (LC). A total of 120 bars (8 × 2 × 1 mm; n = 15/group) were prepared and subjected to different finishing/polishing protocols (C: control; B: bur; BD: diamond bur + diamond-impregnated rubber tips; BS: diamond bur + silica-impregnated rubbers) and aging (without/with 10,000 thermocycles). Mini-flexural strength (σ) was assessed by three-point bending. Surface roughness (Sa) was analyzed using optical profilometry, while surface characterization was performed using SEM. Data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA/Tukey's test (α = 0.05) and Weibull analysis.
resultsFor σ, both finishing/polishing and aging factors significantly affected PIC and LC (p < 0.05), whereas only finishing/polishing influenced CR. In CR, aged CR_BD had the lowest strength (112.0 ± 17.9 MPa). In PIC, aged PIC_BS (121.8 ± 21.4) showed the highest strength, while PIC_BD groups showed the lowest. In LC, the highest values were seen in aged LC_C (125.7 ± 22.9), LC_B (114.75 ± 19.09), and non-aged LC_C (108.11 ± 29.54). Sa was significantly affected by material type and finishing/polishing protocols.
conclusionsSilica-impregnated rubbers improved the flexural strength of PIC after bur finishing. The BD protocol, producing smoother surfaces, may compromise the flexural strength of LC. In contrast, CR was not significantly affected by the polishing protocol. Moreover, aging negatively impacted PIC strength, and polyurethane rubber tips impregnated with diamond particles produced smoother surfaces after bur adjustments. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, polishing protocols should be selected according to material composition, since surface smoothness does not necessarily correlate with improved mechanical performance. For CR, all polishing systems showed comparable performance; for LC, minimal intervention or no polishing better preserved mechanical performance; for PIC, silica-based polishing systems may be preferred.
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.