ArticleDental research journal
In-vitro comparison of the effect of different bonding strategies on the micro-shear bond strength of a silorane-based composite resin to dentin.
Article in Dental research journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of Enamel and Dentinal Microleakage in Class II Silorane-Based and Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorations Using Specific and Nonspecific Adhesives.Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) · 2018Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current study evaluated the micro-shear bond strengths of a new low-shrinkage composite resin to dentin. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in-vitro study, 70 extracted premolars were assigned to one of seven groups (n = 10): Group 1: OptiBond Solo Plus (Opt; Kerr); Group 2: SE Bond (SE; Kuraray); Group 3: Silorane System Adhesive (SSA; 3M ESPE); Group 4: OptiBond Solo Plus + LS Bond (Opt LS); Group 5: SE Bond + LS Bond (SE LS); Group 6: OptiBond Solo Plus (Opt Po); and Group 7: SE Bond (SE Po). Occlusal dentin was exposed and restored with Filtek LS (3M ESPE) in groups 1 to 5 and Point 4 (Kerr) in groups 6 and 7. After thermocycling (1000 cycles at 5/55C), micro-shear bond test was carried out to measure the bond strengths. The results were submitted to analysis of variance and post hoc Tukeytests (P < 0.05).
resultsTwo-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the two types of composite resin (P = 0.187), between bonding agents (P = 0.06) and between composite resin and bonding agents (P = 0.894). Because P value of bonding agents was near the significance level, one-way ANOVA was used separately between the two composite groups. This analysis showed significant differences between silorane composite resin groups (P = 0.045) and Tukey test showed a significant difference between Groups 4 and 5 (P = 0.03).
conclusionThe application of total-etch and self-etch methacrylate-based adhesives with and without use of a hydrophobic resin coating resulted in acceptable bond strengths.
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.