MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117965968 · doi:10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_444_25

Effect of Nanoparticles Reinforcement on Mechanical Properties of Polycarbonate Resin - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In vitro Studies

2025· article· en· W7117965968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ahila Singaravel Chidambaranathan, Gopichander Naveen

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Dental Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolycarbonateReinforcementUltimate tensile strengthFlexural strengthNanoparticle

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Incorporation of nanoparticles but to the polymers may improve the mechanical properties. This systematic review aimed to analyze the effect of nanoparticles reinforcement on mechanical properties of non-metallic clasp retained denture polycarbonate resin. The systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and the population, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) question was 'What is the effect of nanoparticles reinforcement on flexural strength, impact strength, tensile strength, and surface hardness of polycarbonate resin?''. DATA SOURCES: The published literatures were searched in Google scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, Science Direct and ProQuest till 31 December 2024. Risk of bias analysis was done using Joanna Briggs Institute critical for non-randomized experimental studies and the meta-analysis was conducted using Newcastle Ottawa Scale. After applying the selection criteria, 22 in vitro studies were thoroughly assessed. SELECTED STUDIES: Published literature from eleven in-vitro studies were eligible for systematic review and three studies were eligible for meta-analysis. STUDY INFERENCES: There was an insignificant difference in surface hardness and significant difference found in flexural strength, impact strength, tensile strength after nanoparticle reinforcement ( P = 0.24; MD: 1.75; 95% confidence interval -4.62-8.15; I2 = 100%, P < 0.00001), impact strength ( P = 0.06; MD: 2.22; 95% confidence interval -2.89-7.32; I2 = 99%, P < 0.00001), tensile strength ( P = 0.20; MD: 3.63; 95% confidence interval -8.85-16.11; I2 = 100%, P < 0.00001), surface roughness ( P = 0.27; MD: 1.22; 95% confidence interval -1.43-3.86; I2 = 0%, P > 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The literature based evidenced showed that nanoparticle reinforcement showed changes in flexural strength, impact strength and tensile strength of polycarbonate resin.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.041
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of Dental ResearchSame topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207