ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of surface treatment protocols and thermocycling on the optical, surface, and mechanical properties of additively manufactured resin materials.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the effects of surface treatment protocols and thermocycling on the optical, surface, and mechanical properties of additively manufactured resins. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive materials (saremco print CROWNTEC, VarseoSmile Crownplus, VarseoSmile TriniQ, VarseoSmile TriniQ for Formlabs, and Ceramic Crown) were assigned to six groups: control, silane, sandblasting (SB), SB+silane, hydrofluoric acid (HFA), and HFA+silane. After surface treatments and 5,000 thermocycles, color change (ΔE₀₀), translucency (ΔTP₀₀), gloss, surface roughness (Ra), and microhardness (VHN) were measured. Data were analyzed using robust ANOVA and aligned rank transform (ART) mixed ANOVA with Holm-adjusted multiple comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsMaterial type, surface treatment, and aging significantly affected all evaluated parameters (p < 0.001). Following surface treatment (T1), SB and SB + S groups exhibited significantly higher surface roughness and microhardness compared with control, silane, HFA, and HFA + S groups (p < 0.001). In terms of ΔE₀₀, SB and SB + S groups exceeded the clinical acceptability threshold (ΔE₀₀ > 1.8), whereas C, S, HFA, and HFA + S groups remained below the perceptibility threshold at T1. After thermocycling (T2), clinically unacceptable color changes were observed in most treatment groups, gloss values decreased significantly, and microhardness increased (p < 0.001). ΔTP₀₀ values were significantly influenced by material type (p < 0.001) but not consistently by surface treatment. Gloss values decreased significantly over time (p < 0.001), with the lowest values observed at T2. Among the materials, Ceramic Crown showed significantly higher microhardness and lower color change compared with the others (p < 0.05).
conclusionsSurface treatments and thermocycling significantly affect additively manufactured resins; mechanical pretreatments improve hardness but may compromise optical properties. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Careful selection of surface treatment protocols is required to achieve a balance between mechanical performance and esthetic outcomes in additively manufactured restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799923What 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.