ArticleEuropean journal of oral sciences2019
Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites.
Article in European journal of oral sciences, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different bi-layered core and occlusal overlay materials: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Smart biomaterials in restorative dentistry: Recent advances and future perspectives.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
- Effect of fiber placement on the fracture resistance of moderate-size MOD cavities in maxillary premolars: An in vitro study.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2025Article
- Evaluation of fracture behavior in short fiber-reinforced direct and indirect overlay restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Effect of interface surface design on the fracture behavior of bilayered composites.European journal of oral sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different interface designs on the load-bearing capacity of bilayered composite structures (BLS). Cylindrical specimens of BLS were prepared from base composite of 3.5 mm thickness and surface composite of 1.5 mm thickness (n = 80). Two different base composites - flowable bulk-fill (FBF) [smart dentin replacement (SDR)] and short fiber-reinforced (FRC) (everX Posterior) - were evaluated, and conventional composite (G-aenial Posterior) was used as the surface layer. Four different interface designs were used: (i) pyramidal; (ii) mesh; (iii) linear grooves; and (iv) flat surface (control). Three-dimensional printed molds were fabricated to standardize the interface design between the surface and the base composites. The specimens were then statically loaded with a steel ball until fracture using a universal testing machine. Fracture types were classified into catastrophic, complete, and partial bulk. ANOVA revealed that both the material and the interface design had a statistically significant effect on the load-bearing capacity. Flowable bulk-fill showed lower mean load-bearing capacity than FRC in all the interface designs tested, except for the flat surface design. Fracture analysis showed that FRC demonstrated up to 100% partial bulk fractures with the pyramid interface design, but no incidence of catastrophic bulk fracture. By contrast, FBF demonstrated up to 84.6% and 40% catastrophic bulk fractures with the flat interface design but no incidence of partial bulk fracture. Consequently, the interface designs studied enhanced the fracture behavior of BLS.
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.