Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35789771›Full record

ReviewThe Japanese dental science review2022

Fatigue bond strength of dental adhesive systems: Historical background of test methodology, clinical considerations and future perspectives.

Akimasa Tsujimoto, Wayne W Barkmeier, Erica C Teixeira, Toshiki Takamizawa, Masashi Miyazaki, Mark A Latta

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Japanese dental science review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Bond Durability of Two-Step HEMA-Free Universal Adhesive.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Akimasa TsujimotoDepartment of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, 801 Newton Rd, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Wayne W BarkmeierDepartment of General Dentistry, Creighton University School of Dentistry, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.
Erica C TeixeiraDepartment of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, 801 Newton Rd, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
Toshiki TakamizawaDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 108-0022, Japan.
Masashi MiyazakiDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Nihon University School of Dentistry, 1-8-13 Kanda-surugadai, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 108-0022, Japan.
Mark A LattaDepartment of General Dentistry, Creighton University School of Dentistry, 2500 California Plaza, Omaha, NE 68178, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Numerous laboratory evaluations have been conducted since Dr. Rafael Bowen introduced a method for determining the bond strengths of adhesive systems to dental substrates in 1965. Most of the past studies have been conducted using static bond strength tests, such as shear and tensile bond strength testing with either macro or micro sized specimens. These static bond strength tests are conducted using a monotonically increasing load in which stress is applied continuously until failure occurs. Although the type of stress that develops in static bond strength tests is not typically encountered in clinical situations, over the years clinicians have based their choice of adhesive systems for use in daily practice on the results of such tests. However, some well-known researchers have reported that the results obtained from static bond strength testing may have limited clinical relevance and should not be used only by themselves to make recommendations for clinical use. In clinical situations, restorations undergo cyclic stress during mastication at stress levels well below the breaking stress used in static bond strength tests. Thus, dynamic bond strength tests, using cyclic loading, should be more clinically relevant than static bond strength tests. Over 15 years, a testing method designed to assess fatigue bond strengths of dental adhesive systems has been developed through inter-collegial and international collaborative efforts. This review discusses the development of fatigue bond strength testing methodology, provides both a historical perspective and current information regarding available testing data for all categories of adhesive systems to enamel and dentin and perspectives on the future development of both adhesive systems and testing methods.

Indexed as

Bond strengthDentinEnamelFatigueLight-curing dental adhesives

Identifiers

PMID35789771
PMCPMC9250030

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.