ArticleOdontology2022
Direct and semi-direct resin composite restoration in large cavity preparations: analysis of dentin bond strength stability and bottom/top microhardness ratio in a cavity model.
Article in Odontology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 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
- Direct and Semi-Direct Composite Techniques in Posterior Teeth: A Two-Year Follow-Up Comparative Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the influence of the restorative approach and aging time on dentin bond strength (BS), failure mode (FM), and bottom/top microhardness ratio (B/T) in a large dentin cavity model. A total of 102 bovine incisors were used to produce models of conical dentin cavities (4.0 mm thickness × 4.8 mm top diameter × 2.8 mm bottom diameter), which were restored using semi-direct filling (SDF) (Filtek™ Z250 XT + Scotchbond™ Universal/RelyX™ Ultimate luting system), direct bulk filling (DBF) (Filtek™ One Bulk Fill), and direct incremental filling (DIF) (Filtek™ Z250 XT) techniques. B/T, BS, and FM (n = 17) were analyzed in a microhardness tester, a universal testing machine, and a stereomicroscope, respectively, after 24 h and 6 months of water storage. BS and B/T data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA/Tukey post-hoc test (p < 0.05), while FM data were analyzed descriptively. There was a statistically significant difference in BS between the restorative techniques, and BS was influenced by aging time in the DBF and SDF groups. Mixed failure was predominant for the SDF technique in both aging times. There was no statistically significant difference in B/T among the restorative approaches regardless of the aging time (p > 0.05). Although all restorative approaches provided similar B/T, the semi-direct technique showed better performance on the material bond strength to dentine in large cavities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35088153What 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.