ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2021
The Effects of Amalgam Contamination and Different Surface Modifications on Dentin Shear Bond Strength When Using Different Adhesive Protocols.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of amalgam contamination, different surface treatments, and adhesive protocols on dentin shear bond strength (SBS) to bulk-fill composite resin material. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty teeth were fixed in molds, and the dentin was exposed and then polished. Sixty teeth were restored by amalgam and thermocycled to 10,000 cycles (5°C and 55°C, 30-second dwell time). The rest were restored with composite materials without amalgam predecessor. The samples were divided into G1 (with dentin pretreatment with 2% chlorhexidine gluconate), G2 (0.5 mm of dentin was removed), G3 (no surface modification), and G4 (samples were restored with bulk-fill composite). The bonded specimens were subdivided based on the adhesive protocol of the universal adhesive system used into etch-and-rinse and self-etch groups. Acid etching was done using 32% phosphoric acid. Composite resin was used for build-up using mold and glass. Specimens were cured and left for 24 h in distilled water at room temperature for polymerization reaction, underwent thermocycling for 5000 cycles, and were subjected to knife-edge shear bond testing. Descriptive statistics, independent
resultsThe highest mean SBS values were found in the control group where acid etching was used (24.46±2.24 MPa), followed by self-etching in the same group (21.92±2.54 MPa). Lower SBS values were associated with the amalgam-contaminated group. The lowest values were found in the dentin refreshment group when the self-etching mode was used (13.59±1.73 MPa). Chlorhexidine treatment improved the mean SBS value compared with the no treatment or dentin refreshment groups for both adhesive protocols.
conclusionAmalgam contamination may affect SBS values. Acid etching improved SBS for non-contaminated dentin. Chlorhexidine improved SBS for amalgam-contaminated dentin as a surface treatment but had no significant effect.
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.