Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36079385›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Effect of Bonding Protocols on the Performance of Luting Agents Applied to CAD-CAM Composites.

Bruna Hilgemberg, Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de Siqueira, Andres Felipe Millan Cardenas, Josiane Loch Ribeiro, Andrés Dávila-Sánchez, Salvatore Sauro, Alessandro Dourado Loguercio, Cesar Augusto Galvao Arrais

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Bruna HilgembergDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa 840030-900, Brazil.
Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de SiqueiraDepartment of Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luis 65075-120, Brazil.
Andres Felipe Millan CardenasDepartment of Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, CEUMA University, São Luis 65075-120, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-7434-3327
Josiane Loch RibeiroDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa 840030-900, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2420-0029
Andrés Dávila-SánchezDepartmento de Odontología Restauradora y Materiales Dentales, Escuela de Odontología, Universidad San Francisco de Quito USFQ, Pampite y Diego de Robles, Quito 170901, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-6235-802X
Salvatore SauroDental Biomaterials and Minimally Invasive Dentistry, Departmento de Odontologia, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud Universidad, CEU-Cardenal Herrera, Alfara del Patriarca, 46115 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2527-8776
Alessandro Dourado LoguercioDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa 840030-900, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9880-4856
Cesar Augusto Galvao ArraisDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa 840030-900, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0003-3432-5009
Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa · BRUniversidade Ceuma · BRSechenov University · RUUniversidad San Francisco de Quito · EC

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of different bonding strategies on the micro-shear bond strength (μSBS) of luting agents to CAD−CAM composites. Surface scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and spectroscopy by energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were performed to analyze the surfaces of the composite before and after bonding treatment. Three CAD−CAM composites were evaluated: Lava Ultimate restorative (LU), Brava Blocks (BR), and Vita Enamic (VE). The LU and BR surfaces were sandblasted using aluminum oxide, while the VE surfaces were etched using a 5% hydrofluoric acid gel according to the manufacturers’ recommendations. All surfaces were subjected to the following bonding strategies (n = 15): adhesive with silane and MDP (ScotchBond Universal, 3M Oral Care, St Paul, MI, USA); adhesive with MDP (Ambar Universal, FGM, Joinville, Brazil); adhesive without silane or MDP (Prime&Bond Elect, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC, USA), pure silane without MDP (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), and pure silane with MDP (Monobond N, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstei). Afterwards, tygons were filled with RelyX Ultimate (3M Oral Care), AllCem (FGM), or Enforce (Dentsply Sirona), which were light-cured and subjected to the μSBS test. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Bonferroni’s post hoc test (α = 0.05). Additional blocks (n = 15) were subjected to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) before and after the surface treatment. The μSBS values on VE surfaces were higher than those observed on LU and BR surfaces (p < 0.001). Silane without MDP (Allcem) promoted the highest μSBS values, while silane with MDP (RelyX Ultimate) provided the highest values among all bonding strategies (p < 0.001). Enforce promoted no significant difference in μSBS values. SEM and EDS analyses detected noticeable changes to the surface morphology and composition after the surface treatment. The effectiveness of the bonding strategy may vary according not only to the CAD−CAM composite but also to resin cement/bonding agent/silane used.

Indexed as

bond strengthCAD–CAMcomposite resinresin cementsuniversal adhesives

Identifiers

PMID36079385
PMCPMC9457303
OpenAlexW4293773206

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.