ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2015
Shear bond strength of partial coverage restorations to dentin.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2015. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhen partial coverage restorations (veneers, inlays, onlays…) must be cemented to dentin, bond strength may not reach the same predictable values as to enamel. The purpose of this study was: 1. To compare, with a shear bond test, the bond strength to dentin of a total-etch and a self-etching bonding agent. 2. To determine whether creating microretention improves the bond strength to dentin. MATERIAL AND
methodsTwo bonding agents were assayed, Optibond FL® (Kerr), two-bottle adhesive requiring acid etching, and Clearfil SE Bond® (Kuraray), two-bottle self-etching adhesive. The vestibular, lingual, distal and mesial surfaces of ten molars (n=10) were ground to remove all enamel and 40 ceramic samples were cemented with Variolink II® (Ivoclar Vivadent). Half the molar surfaces were treated to create round microretention (pits) to determine whether these could influence bond strength to dentin. The 40 molar surfaces were divided into four groups (n=10): Optibond FL (O); Clearfil SE (C); Optibond FL + microretention (OM); Clearfil SE + micro retention (CM). A shear bond test was performed and the bond failures provoked examined under an optical microscope.
resultsO=35.27±8.02 MPa; C=36.23±11.23 MPa; OM=28.61±6.27 MPa; CM=27.01±7.57 MPa. No statistically significant differences were found between the adhesives. Optibond FL showed less statistical dispersion than Clearfil SE. The presence of microretentions reduced bond strength values regardless of the adhesive used.
conclusions1. Clearfil SE self-etching adhesive and Optibond FL acid-etch showed adequate bond strengths and can be recommended for bonding ceramic restorations to dentin. 2. The creation of round microretention pits compromises these adhesives' bond strength to dentin. Key words:Adhesion to dentin, bonding agent, Optibond FL, Clearfil SE, microretention, shear bond test.
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.