ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Influence of printing angle on the mechanical and surface properties of 3D-printed hybrid resins for indirect restorations: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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: 3D-printed hybrid resins are promising. However, some parameters, such as the printing angle, may affect their performance, and the available evidence is still limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of different printing angles (0º, 45º, and 90º) on the mechanical and surface properties of 3D-printed hybrid resins. Materials and Methods: Groups were defined by printing angle (0°, 45°, 90°) and two resin types: VarseoSmile Crown Plus (VS) and PriZma Bio Crown (PB). Tests included flexural strength (n=10), surface roughness (n=12), microhardness (n=12), and contact angle (n=12). Statistical analyses compared materials (t-tests or Mann-Whitney) and printing angles (ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis). Results: Flexural strength varied only in VS, with 90° showing the best results. Roughness was influenced in all groups, with 0° producing the lowest values. For microhardness, VS performed best at 90° and 45°, while PB performed best at 0° and 90°. Contact angle differences appeared only in VS, with 45° showing the greatest wettability. Conclusions: The printing angle affected most properties. A 0° angle yielded the best surface roughness for all materials and the best microhardness for PB. A 45° angle showed a favorable contact angle. A 90° angle was most suitable for flexural strength.
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.