ArticleBMC oral health2023
Push out bond strength of hydraulic cements used at different thicknesses.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bioceramics in Endodontics: Limitations and Future Innovations-A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the pushout bond strength (POBS) of three hydraulic cements, when used at thicknesses of 3 and 5 mm.
methods78 root slices of 3 and 5 mm of thickness were obtained from human teeth. Cylindrical cavities of 1.4 mm of diameter were drilled and filled with Biodentine (BD), Totalfill Root Repair paste (TF) or ProRoot MTA White (PMTA). Pushout tests were performed 21 days later. The fracture pattern of each sample was also analyzed. POBS data were analyzed with Welch and Brown-Forsythe and Tamhane's post hoc tests and a Weibull analysis was also performed.
resultsIn the 3 mm group, TF showed significantly lower bond strength than BD and PMTA. In the 5 mm group, BD showed significantly higher bond strength than TF. Both BD and TF showed higher bond strength when the thickness of the sample increased, while PMTA did not.
conclusionsTF and BD achieve higher pushout bond strength resistance when used at a thickness of 5 mm than at 3 mm, while the mean resistance of PMTA is less influenced by the thickness. At 5 mm of thickness, BD and PMTA exhibit similar resistance to displacement. However, the behavior of BD is more predictable than that of its predecessor. BD is a reliable hydraulic cement for clinical situations where thick cavities need to be filled and displacement resistance plays an important role. Clinicians need to consider choosing specific hydraulic cements according to the thickness of material to be used.
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.