ArticleBiomimetics (Basel, Switzerland)2022
The Evaluation of Microshear Bond Strength of Resin Cements to Titanium Using Different Surface Treatment Methods: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
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
This study attempted to investigate the effect of sandblasting and H2O2 treatments on the microshear bond strength of two commercially available resin cements. A total of 90 cube-shaped specimens of commercially pure titanium (cp-Ti) were divided into two groups of Panavia and MHA cements (n = 45). Samples of the Panavia group were randomly divided into three subgroups of 15 samples, including subgroups (no treatment, aluminum oxide sandblasting, and immersion in 35% hydrogen peroxide solution with halogen light). Once the treatment was completed, Panavia V5 was applied on the cp-Ti surface by a Tygon tube. The 45 specimens of the MHA cement group were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 15) similarly to the Panavia group. Then, the MHA was applied on the surface of cp-Ti. A universal testing machine was used to measure and examine the microshear bond strength of cement to cp-Ti subsequent to the step of thermocycling. According to results, in the Panavia cement group, the SBS of sandblasting treatment was significantly higher than that of the H2O2 treatment subgroup (p < 0.05), which displayed a significantly higher SBS than that of the no-treatment subgroup (p < 0.001). In regard to the MHA group, the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup was significantly lower than that of the sandblasting treatment subgroup (p < 0.001), whereas there were no significant differences between the SBS of the no treatment and H2O2 treatment subgroups (p = 0.35). Considering the comparison between Panavia and MHA cases, there were no significant differences observed among the no-treatment subgroups (p = 0.34), as well as the sandblasting treatment subgroups (p = 0.67), while the SBS of the H2O2 treatment subgroup in Panavia cement was higher than that of the H2O2 subgroup in MHA cement (p < 0.001). In conclusion, in both Panavia V5 and MHA cements, sandblasting treatment could improve the bond strength between the titanium surface. However, H2O2 treatment proved to be capable of enhancing the bond strength of Panavia V5 cement without causing any positive effects on the bond strength of MHA cement.
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.