Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715694›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Effect of adhesive coating on calcium, phosphate, and fluoride release from experimental and commercial remineralizing dental restorative materials.

Matej Par, Andrea Gubler, Thomas Attin, Zrinka Tarle, Andro Tarle, Katica Prskalo, Tobias T Tauböck

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Microshear bond strength of conventional and bioactive restorative materials to irradiated and non-irradiated dentin: an in vitro study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Matej ParDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, Zagreb, Croatia. mpar@sfzg.hr.
Andrea GublerDepartment of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas AttinDepartment of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, Zurich, Switzerland.
Zrinka TarleDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, Zagreb, Croatia.
Andro TarleCommunity Health Center Zagreb - Center, Runjaninova 4, Zagreb, Croatia.
Katica PrskaloDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Gunduliceva 5, Zagreb, Croatia.
Tobias T TauböckDepartment of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, Zurich, Switzerland.
University of Zagreb · HRUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study investigated the potential of adhesive coating for hindering the reactivity of ion-releasing dental restorative materials. Experimental composites were prepared by replacing 10 or 20 wt% of reinforcing fillers with two types of bioactive glass. A glass ionomer, a giomer, and an alkasite were used as representatives of commercial ion-releasing materials. Restorative material specimens were coated with an etch-and-rinse adhesive, 1-step self-etch adhesive, 2-step self-etch adhesive, or left uncoated. The specimens were immersed in a lactic acid solution and ion concentrations were measured in 4 days intervals for 32 days (atomic absorption spectrometry for calcium, UV-Vis spectrometry for phosphate, ion-selective electrode for fluoride, and pH-meter for pH values). The adhesive coating reduced ion release between 0.3 and 307 times, in a significantly material- and adhesive-dependent manner. Fluoride release was most highly impaired, with the reduction of up to 307 times, followed by phosphate and calcium release, which were reduced up to 90 and 45 times, respectively. The effect of different adhesive systems was most pronounced for phosphate release, with the following rankings: uncoated ≥ 2-step self-etch adhesive ≥ 1-step self-etch adhesive ≥ etch-and-rinse adhesive. The differences among adhesives were less pronounced for calcium and fluoride. It was concluded that the resinous adhesive layer can act as a barrier for ion release and diminish the beneficial effects of remineralizing restorative materials.

Indexed as

FluoridesResin CementsAdhesivesCalciumComposite ResinsMaterials TestingPhosphatesAdhesivesCalciumComposite ResinsFluoridesPhosphatesResin Cements

Identifiers

PMID35715694
PMCPMC9205952
OpenAlexW4283032679

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.