ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Surface Properties, Color Stability, and Bacterial Adhesion of Implant-Supported Provisional Restorative Materials: In Vitro Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate surface roughness, wettability, color stability, and bacterial adhesion of different materials used in implant-supported provisional restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty samples (6 × 6 × 2 mm ± 0.2 mm) were fabricated and distributed into four groups (n = 20): Bis-acryl composite resin (BCR); CAD-CAM PMMA resin (Milled); Auto-polymerized acrylic resin (APR); prefabricated acrylic tooth (PT). Surface roughness was measured using a 3D optical profilometer, wettability by the sessile drop method, and color stability with a spectrophotometer after immersion in distilled water and coffee. Bacterial adhesion was assessed through Streptococcus mutans biofilm formation and quantified spectrophotometrically after crystal violet staining. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsBis-acryl composite resin (BCR) showed the lowest surface roughness, while prefabricated acrylic tooth (PT) exhibited higher roughness and contact angle values (p < 0.001) and the greatest color change (ΔE ≥ 3.3). BCR demonstrated the highest bacterial adhesion, whereas CAD-CAM PMMA resin (Milled) showed the lowest adhesion.
conclusionsThe behavior of provisional restorative materials is influenced by their composition, affecting surface, optical, and biological performance. Lower surface roughness did not result in reduced biofilm formation. CAD/CAM-milled and Auto-polymerized resins showed more favorable overall performance.
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.