Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33841734›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2021

Minimal intervention in dentistry: which is the best approach for silorane composite restoration repairs?

Rayssa-Ferreira Zanatta, Carlos-Rocha-Gomes Torres, Juliana-Boa-Sorte de Oliveira, Karen-Cristina-Kazue Yui, Amanda-Guedes-Nogueira Matuda, Stephanie-Ribeiro Lopes, Ana-Paula-Valente-Pinho Mafetano, Raquel-Pinto Campos, Alessandra-Bühler Borges, Cesar-Rogério Pucci

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Rayssa-Ferreira ZanattaDDS, Ms, PhD. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Taubaté, Taubaté, Brazil, and Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos-Rocha-Gomes TorresDDS, PhD. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Juliana-Boa-Sorte de OliveiraDDS, Ms. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Karen-Cristina-Kazue YuiDDS, Ms, PhD. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Amanda-Guedes-Nogueira MatudaDDS, Ms, PhD Student. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Stephanie-Ribeiro LopesDDS, Ms Student. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Ana-Paula-Valente-Pinho MafetanoDDS, Ms, PhD Student. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Raquel-Pinto CamposDDS, Ms Student. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Alessandra-Bühler BorgesDDS, Ms, PhD. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.
Cesar-Rogério PucciDDS, Ms, PhD. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University-UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate surface treatments, adhesives and composites for repairing silorane based restorations. MATERIAL AND

methodsOne hundred and twenty truncated cones (2 mm smaller diameter and 4 mm larger diameter) made of silorane composite were divided in 12 groups according with the surface treatment (diamond bur and oxide aluminum abrasion), the adhesive (Adper Scothbond Multipurpose (3M ESPE), Ecusit (Voco) and Filtek P90 Adhesive (3M ESPE)). Each group was subdivided in two according with the composite used for repair (methacrylate and silorane). The repair was made with a second truncated cone build over the first one and bond strength assssed by tensile strength. Data were submitted to ANOVA 3-way and Tukey's test (

resultsThere was difference only for the adhesives and the composites, with conventional adhesives (Adper Scothbond Mutipurpose) and methacrylate-based composites (Filtek Z350) presenting superior tensile strength compared to the silorane ones (P90 Adhesive system and composite).

conclusionsTherefore, it must be concluded that silorane composite can be repaired with methacrylate base composites and adhesives.

Identifiers

PMID33841734
PMCPMC8020319

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.