ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Evaluation of Compressive and Flexural Strength of a Novel Nanohybrid Composite Resin (Spident EsCom100) and an Established Nanohybrid Composite (Tetric N-Ceram): 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
Background and objective Resin-based composites are widely used in restorative dentistry due to their esthetics and mechanical performance. However, variations in composition can influence their strength and clinical durability. This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the compressive and flexural strengths of the novel nanohybrid composite Spident EsCom100 (Spident Co., Incheon, South Korea) and the established nanohybrid composite Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Materials and methods A total of 80 specimens were prepared and divided into two groups. We evaluated compressive strength using cylindrical specimens (n = 20) measuring 5 mm × 5 mm, and flexural strength using rectangular specimens (n = 20) measuring 25 mm × 2 mm × 2 mm in a three-point bending test. Testing was performed using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using an independent-samples t-test (p < 0.05). Results The mean compressive strength of Spident EsCom100 and Tetric N-Ceram was 116.21 ± 38.64 MPa and 116.47 ± 33.22 MPa, respectively, with no statistically significant difference (t = 0.023, p = 0.981). The mean flexural strength values were 82.98 ± 20.30 MPa for Spident EsCom100 and 84.13 ± 13.56 MPa for Tetric N-Ceram, which was also not statistically significant (t = 0.211, p = 0.828). Conclusions Both Spident EsCom100 and Tetric N-Ceram demonstrated comparable compressive and flexural strength values under the standardized laboratory conditions employed in this in vitro study, indicating satisfactory mechanical performance for restorative clinical applications.
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.