ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Comparing the bond strength of fiber post cementation in the root canal using pre- and co-curing procedures with the same self-etching bonding system.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Push-out Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill Composites Used as Intracanal Anchorage Material.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Self-etching bonding systems are widely used in fiber post cementation. However, no clear guidelines are established for choosing pre- or co-curing procedures. We investigated the bond strength of fiber post cementation using pre-/co-curing methods in self-etching bonding systems and compared them with those of a self-adhesive system. Materials and methods: Post spaces were prepared in 30 single-rooted premolars/canines, and the fiber posts were cemented in three ways (10 specimens per group): using a self-etching bonding system with either a pre-curing or simultaneous co-curing procedure (RelyX™ Ultimate; groups SE-pre and SE-co, respectively) and using a self-adhesive system (RelyX™ Unicem 2, group SA). Each specimen was embedded and sliced perpendicularly to the long axis into three 2.5-mm-thick sections. Microphotographs of the coronal and apical surfaces of each section were acquired, and push-out tests (1 mm/min) were performed. One-way analysis of variance was conducted on the data, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc test. Results: The bond strength in the whole root was not significantly different among the three groups. When independently evaluating each portion, group SE-co exhibited significantly lower coronal bond strength. The bond strength varied among root regions only in group SE-pre; the apical region had a significantly lower value. Conclusion: No cementation method is superior in all portions. Regarding pre-curing methods, clinicians must caution the fit between the post and post space, which may be affected by the pre-polymerized bond layer. The co-curing method used in a larger coronal cement space contributes to the poor bond strength.
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.