ArticleJournal of dental sciences2026
Comparative effects of plasma activation and monomer infiltration on the surface characteristics and wettability of 3D-printed permanent crown resin.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The bonding performance of 3D-printed resins (3DRs) used for permanent crowns can be challenging due to their high filler content. This study evaluated the surface characteristics and wettability of non-thermal handheld plasma (NTHP) and resin-matrix penetrating primer (RMPP) treatments in comparison with conventional airborne-particle abrasion (APA) and universal adhesive (UA) protocols. Materials and methods: Disc-shaped 3DR specimens were allocated into five surface-treatment groups: no treatment (NT), APA/UA (AU), APA/RMPP (AP), NTHP/UA (PU), and NTHP/RMPP (PP). Surface roughness and morphology were assessed. Wettability was determined by contact angle (CA) measurements using distilled water and diiodomethane, and surface energy (SE) was calculated. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: APA significantly increased surface roughness ( Conclusion: APA effectively modifies surface morphology, while NTHP activates the surface without altering its topography. Although UA yields the highest total SE, both UA and RMPP provide adequate dispersive energy to ensure favorable wetting by hydrophobic resin cements. Ultimately, the bonding agents effectively masked the mechanical topography, resulting in wettability driven primarily by the adhesive's chemical composition rather than the underlying mechanical pre-treatments.
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.