ArticleCureus2026
Comparison of Physical and Mechanical Properties of Various Commercially Available Nanohybrid Composites: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNanohybrid resin composites are widely used in restorative dentistry because they combine favorable esthetics and improved mechanical properties. However, commercially available nanohybrid composites differ in their filler characteristics, resin matrix composition, and manufacturing processes, which may influence their clinical performance. Therefore, this study aims to compare the tensile strength, flexural strength, compressive strength, and Barcol hardness of four commercially available nanohybrid composite resins. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro experimental study was conducted using 160 standardized specimens prepared from four types of nanohybrid composite resins: Tetric N-Ceram, Fusion Universal, NanoCom Composite, and NanoFill Composite. Each material was allocated to 40 specimens, which were further divided into four subgroups (n = 10) for tensile, flexural, compressive, and Barcol hardness testing. Bar-shaped specimens were fabricated for tensile and flexural strength evaluation, whereas cylindrical specimens were prepared for compressive strength and hardness testing. Mechanical testing was performed using a universal testing machine and Barcol hardness tester under standardized laboratory conditions. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post-hoc test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsTetric N-Ceram demonstrated the highest mean tensile strength (22.52 ± 3.79 MPa), flexural strength (94.36 ± 21.65 MPa), compressive strength (87.82 ± 55.60 MPa), and Barcol hardness (73.60 ± 2.32). Significant intergroup differences were observed in the tensile strength (p = 0.038), flexural strength (p = 0.002), and Barcol hardness (p < 0.001), whereas the compressive strength was not significantly different among the four materials (p = 0.555). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated significantly greater tensile and flexural strengths for Tetric N-Ceram compared with several other composites, while the Barcol hardness also differed significantly between most material combinations.
conclusionThe mechanical performance of commercially available nanohybrid composite resins differed significantly. Tetric N-Ceram demonstrated the most favorable overall mechanical properties, particularly with respect to tensile strength, flexural strength, and surface hardness. These findings indicate that nanohybrid composites are not mechanically equivalent and should be selected based on scientific evidence rather than on material classification alone.
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.