ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2012
Interfacial integrity of bonded restorations with self-etching adhesives: Water storage and thermo-mechanical cycling.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Gravity on Marginal Integrity of Different Flowable Bulk-Fill Resin Composites.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Methylene Blue Penetration of Resin Infiltration and Resin Sealant in Artificial White-Spot Lesions.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Effects of Er, Cr: YSGG Laser on Shear Bond Strength of the Orthodontic Brackets for 5 and 10 Seconds: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2022Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectives
objectiveTo evaluate the effect of thermo-mechanical cycling (TMC) on the microleakage (μL) and axial gap width (AG) of Class V bonded restorations in premolars using self-etching adhesive systems. The bond strength of composite restorations to dentin (μTBS) using the same adhesives was also evaluated in third molars after water storage: 24 h and 6 months. The research hypotheses were tested for the results of two self-etching adhesives in comparison when a conventional two-step adhesive was used: (1) the μL and AG would be lower, regardless of TMC; (2) the μTBS of self-etching adhesives would be higher, irrespective of evaluation times.
methodsSixty Class V composite restorations were made in 30 premolars and bonded with Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB2), AdheSE (ASE), and Adper Prompt L-Pop (APL-P) (n=20). Dentin μL and AG were immediately measured for half of the sample. The other half was evaluated after TMC. Eighteen third molars were also selected and bonded using the same adhesives to test the μTBS to dentin. Specimens were evaluated after 24 h and 6 months of water storage.
resultsNo differences in μL and AG were found among the groups (P>.05). The μTBS mean values were: ASB2>ASE>APL-P (P<.05); only Adper Single Bond 2 presented a significantly lower μTBS after water storage (P<.05).
conclusionsThe bonding approach does not influence the microleakage and interfacial gap extension. Despite the decrease in the mean values, the bond strength to dentin of the conventional, two-step adhesive remains high after 6 months of water storage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22509120PMC3327497W1591981240What 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.