ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2021
Immediate and long-term microshear bond strength of resin-based cements to core build-up materials.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Effects of a relined fiberglass post with conventional and self-adhesive resin cement.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the microshear bond strength (μ-SBS) between resin-based cements and core build-up materials after water storage. MATERIAL AND
methodsCylinders (1x1 mm) of conventional dual-cure resin cement (RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE), universal dual-cure resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) or self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200, 3M ESPE) were adhered to disks (6x2 mm) made with commercial core build-up materials (Bis-Core, Bisco or LuxaCore Z, DMG) or conventional nanocomposite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). The specimens (n=10) were submitted to μ-SBS test using a universal testing machine and fracture pattern analysis at 48 hours or after 9 months of water storage. The data were evaluated by three-way ANOVA for repeated measures and Tukey's test (α=0.05).
resultsAfter 48 hours, regardless of the resin-based cement used, the μ-SBS to the conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) was greater compared to other materials. However, after 9 months, there was a statistically significant decrease in μ-SBS values between the conventional resin composite and evaluated luting agents. The μ-SBS values of core build-up commercial materials (Bis-Core and LuxaCore Z) did not change over time. Regardless of the composite used and storage time, there was no statistically significant difference between the resin-based cements. After 48 h, the most prevalent failure was mixed for all groups. However, after 9 months, the core build-up materials showed a predominantly mixed fracture pattern whereas the resin composite presented an adhesive pattern.
conclusionsCommercial core build-up materials achieved stable bonding performance with resin-based cements over time.
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.