ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative volumetric wear of occlusal splint materials under simulated gastric acid and artificial saliva conditions.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundWear of occlusal splint materials may alter appliance geometry and occlusal relationships during use. This in vitro study evaluated the volumetric material loss of four commercially available occlusal splint materials differing in polymer composition and manufacturing technology after mechanical loading in artificial saliva and simulated gastric acid.
methodsA total of 128 specimens were prepared from two digital light processing (DLP)-printed PMMA-based resins (Detax Freeprint Splint and Armarez), one CAD/CAM-milled PEEK material (PEEK Biosolution), and one conventionally injection-molded polyamide material (Cool&Flex). The specimens were allocated to artificial saliva or simulated gastric acid and subjected to either 30,000 or 120,000 chewing cycles. Baseline and post-simulation stereolithography datasets were superimposed, and volumetric material loss was calculated in mm³. The effects of material, storage medium, chewing-cycle number, and their interactions were evaluated using robust factorial ANOVA based on 20% trimmed means.
resultsVolumetric material loss was significantly associated with material (p < 0.001, partial η² = 0.881), chewing-cycle number (p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.626), and the material × chewing-cycle interaction (p = 0.001, partial η² = 0.752). The main effect of storage medium was not statistically significant (p = 0.054). When values were pooled across both storage media and chewing-cycle conditions, Cool&Flex showed the greatest volumetric material loss (20% trimmed mean ± SE: 1.171 ± 0.193 mm³), whereas comparatively low values were observed for PEEK Biosolution (0.079 ± 0.014 mm³) and Armarez (0.087 ± 0.020 mm³).
conclusionsUnder the conditions of this in vitro study, volumetric material loss differed among the tested commercial products and increased with mechanical loading, although the magnitude of this increase varied by material. Storage in simulated gastric acid did not significantly affect volumetric material loss. Because polymer composition and manufacturing method varied simultaneously among the products, their independent effects cannot be distinguished. These findings are limited to the materials and experimental conditions evaluated and should not be interpreted as direct predictions of clinical longevity.
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.