Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35982349›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2022

Orthodontic shear bond strength and ultimate load tests of CAD/CAM produced artificial teeth.

Christoph J Roser, Thomas Rückschloß, Andreas Zenthöfer, Peter Rammelsberg, Christopher J Lux, Stefan Rues

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Comparison of six different CAD/CAM retainers vs. the stainless steel twistflex retainer: an in vitro investigation of survival rate and stability.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2025
    Article
  4. Finite Element Analysis of Fixed Orthodontic Retainers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Christoph J RoserDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. christoph.roser@med.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7556-1510
Thomas RückschloßDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Andreas ZenthöferDepartment of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.
Peter RammelsbergDepartment of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.
Christopher J LuxDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Stefan RuesDepartment of Prosthodontics, Heidelberg University Hospital, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate whether artificial CAD/CAM processed (computer-aided design/manufacturing) teeth could be a feasible option for the production of dental in vitro models for biomechanical testing. MATERIAL AND

methodsDisks (n = 10 per group) made from two different CAD/CAM-materials, one fiber-reinforced composite (FRC; Trinia, Bicon) and one polymethylmethacrylate-based resin (PMMA; Telio CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent), as well as bovine teeth (n = 10), were tested for their shear bond strength (SBS) and scored according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). In addition, CAD/CAM-manufactured lower incisor teeth were tested for their ultimate load (F

resultsWith regard to SBS, both PMMA (17.4 ± 2.2 MPa) and FRC (18.0 ± 2.4 MPa) disks showed no significant difference (p = 0.968) compared to bovine disks (18.0 ± 5.4 MPa). However, the samples differed with regard to their failure mode (PMMA: ARI 4, delamination failure; FRC: ARI 0 and bovine: ARI 1.6, both adhesive failure). With regard to F

conclusionUnlike PMMA-based teeth, teeth made from FRC showed sufficiently high fracture resistance and comparable SBS. Thus, FRC teeth could be a promising alternative for the production of dental in vitro models for orthodontic testing. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: CAD/CAM-processed teeth made from FRC enable the use of standardized geometry and constant material properties. Using FRC teeth in dental in vitro studies has therefore the potential to identify differences between various treatment options with rather small sample sizes, while remaining close to the clinical situation.

Indexed as

Dental BondingTooth, ArtificialAnimalsCattleComposite ResinsComputer-Aided DesignDental Stress AnalysisMaterials TestingPolymethyl MethacrylateShear StrengthSurface PropertiesComposite ResinsPolymethyl MethacrylateArtificial teethBovine teethCAD/CAMDentalShear bond strengthUltimate load

Identifiers

PMID35982349
PMCPMC9708765

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.