Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29630794›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of dentistry2018

Retention of CAD/CAM resin composite crowns following different bonding protocols.

Amir H Nejat, Jinwhan Lee, Shreya Shah, Chee Paul Lin, Prajakta Kulkarni, Ramakiran Chavali, Nathaniel C Lawson

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Amir H NejatDepartment of Prosthodontics, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
Jinwhan LeeGlidewell Laboratories, Newport Beach, California, USA.
Shreya ShahGlidewell Laboratories, Newport Beach, California, USA.
Chee Paul LinCenter for Clinical and Translational Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Prajakta KulkarniClinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Ramakiran ChavaliRestorative Sciences, Division of Prosthodontics, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
Nathaniel C LawsonClinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, University of Alabama at Birmingham, School of Dentistry, Birmingham, Alabama, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham · US

Funding

UAB Center for Clinical and Translational Science (CCTS)UL1TR001417 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI KIMBERLY, ROBERT P. · 2015 to 2018
$31.4M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001417
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and primers with a CAD/CAM resin composite block on its crown retention.

methods120 human molars were prepared with a 24° total convergence angle, 1.5 mm height, and axial walls in dentin. Surface area was measured by digital microscopy. Crowns were machined from CAD/CAM resin composite blocks. Teeth were randomly allocated to 12 groups (n= 10) based on possible combinations of three surface treatments: [Control, Alumina air abrasion (50-µm Al₂O₃ at 0.28 MPa) ]; 5% hydrofluoric acid etch (20-second scrub); silane application (with or without Kerr Silane primer); and adhesive application (with or without Optibond XTR Adhesive). Optibond XTR Adhesive was applied to the tooth preparations and crowns were bonded with MaxCem Elite cement. Crowns were fatigued for 100,000 cycles at 100 N in water and debonded in tension (1 mm/minute). Crown retention strength (maximum load/surface area) values were analyzed using a three-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc tests (α= 0.05).

resultsSurface treatment, silane and adhesive applications independently affect retention force (P< 0.05). All interactions were not significant (P> 0.05). Alumina airborne abrasion surface treatment, silane and adhesive applications all improve retention strength. Therefore, CAD/CAM resin composite crowns can withstand debonding while undergoing mechanical fatigue. Although all forms of surface treatment and primer application improve bond strength, the highest mean retention strength values were recorded when the crowns were alumina particle abraded and coated with adhesive (with or without silane). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: In order to improve the bonding of resin composite crowns, application of alumina airborne particle abrasion and a coat of adhesive (proceeded by an optional coat of silane) is recommended. If hydrofluoric acid is utilized, the crowns should be treated with a coat of silane followed by adhesive application.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsComputer-Aided DesignCrownsDental BondingDental CementsDental Stress AnalysisHumansMaterials TestingRandom AllocationResin CementsStress, MechanicalSurface PropertiesComposite ResinsDental CementsResin Cements

Identifiers

PMID29630794
PMCPMC7135944
OpenAlexW2810240396

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.