ArticleInternational journal of adhesion & adhesives2020
Article in International journal of adhesion & adhesives, 2020. 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Bond strength between acrylic resin and artificial tooth treated with experimental silane with thio-urethane.Brazilian dental journal · 2025Article
- Selected Spectroscopic Techniques for Surface Analysis of Dental Materials: A Narrative Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
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
Abstract
objectivesThio-urethane oligomeric additives have been shown to improve the mechanical properties of dental composites and resin cements. To try to harness those same properties in dental adhesives, in this study, these oligomers (TU) were added to the matrix and/or as filler functionalization of experimental adhesives, and the effects on conversion and mechanical properties were analyzed.
methodsBisGMA and HEMA (60/40 wt%) were used as the monomer matrix, made polymerizable by the addition of 0.2 wt% 2,2-dimethoxy-2- phenylacetophenone. 2,6-di-
resultsThere was no significant difference between groups when yield strength (YS) and flexural modulus (FM) were evaluated in dry conditions. After water storage, all the groups containing TU in the matrix showed statistically lower YS/FM values. This was true in spite of the statistically higher conversion for those same groups. The maximum rate of polymerization (Rpmax) was higher for BH+10%TF and no significant difference was found for the groups BH and BH+10% MF. The lowest Rpmax values were found for BH+20%TU+10%TF and BH+20%TU. BH+20%TU+10%TF showed the highest viscosity values followed by BH+20%TU+10%MF and BH+20%TU, with statistically significant difference between them. For the microtensile bond strength test at 24h (p = 0.13) and 6 months (p = 0.11) and WS/SL (p
conclusionIn spite of improving the conversion, the addition of TU in the matrix reduced the mechanical properties of the adhesives tested after water storage. This did not affect the bond strength at 24 h or 6 months.
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.