ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of the Physical and Mechanical Properties of a New Composite Resin: 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction As a versatile treatment alternative, dental resins require a thorough understanding of their physical and mechanical properties to ensure proper selection and clinical efficacy. Objective To evaluate the physical and mechanical properties of a novel dental resin in comparison with commercially available resins. Methods This in vitro study evaluated Vickers hardness, elastic modulus, and depth of cure. Five specimens per test were prepared for each of the following commercial brands: Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative (3M), Empress Direct (Ivoclar), and New Stetic resin, yielding a total of 45 specimens. All specimens were fabricated by a single, standardized operator. Testing was performed using an Indenta Met microhardness tester (Model 1104; Buehler Ltd., Lake Bluff, IL), a universal testing machine (Model 3366; Instron Corp., Norwood, MA), and an analog micrometer (Ubermann), respectively. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's HSD post-hoc test to contrast the evaluated properties across brands. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative (3M) exhibited the highest Vickers hardness (128.98 VHN) and depth of cure (2.87 mm), followed by New Stetic (110.93 VHN; 2.64 mm) and Empress Direct (Ivoclar; 64.61 VHN; 2.03 mm), demonstrating statistically significant differences in both tests (p < 0.000). Regarding the elastic modulus, New Stetic exhibited the highest stiffness (3,377.50 MPa), Filtek Z250 (2,401.33 MPa), and Empress Direct (2,277.31 MPa). Although overall differences were found among the groups (p < 0.000), no statistically significant difference was observed between Filtek Z250 and Empress Direct (p = 0.743). Conclusions The three composite resins evaluated in this study exhibited distinct variations in their physical and mechanical properties. Nevertheless, the performance of the New Stetic resin fell within established standards for clinical quality and normality, demonstrating that this biomaterial represents a viable alternative for restorative 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.