ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2023
Microscopic Inspection of the Adhesive Interface of Composite Onlays after Cementation on Low Loading: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2023. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Modern Light-Cured Restorative Composites as Luting Agents: The Effect of Preheating on Conversion and Film Thickness.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Surface modification of zirconia or lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramic by laser texturing to increase the adhesion of prosthetic surfaces to resin cements: an integrative review.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to assess the layer thickness and microstructure of traditional resin-matrix cements and flowable resin-matrix composites at dentin and enamel to composite onlay interfaces after cementation on low loading magnitude. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty teeth were prepared and conditioned with an adhesive system for restoration with resin-matrix composite onlays manufactured by CAD-CAM. On cementation, tooth-to-onlay assemblies were distributed into four groups, including two traditional resin-matrix cements (groups M and B), one flowable resin-matrix composite (group G), and one thermally induced flowable composite (group V). After the cementation procedure, assemblies were cross-sectioned for inspection by optical microscopy at different magnification up to ×1000.
resultsThe layer thickness of resin-matrix cementation showed the highest mean values at around 405 µm for a traditional resin-matrix cement (group B). The thermally induced flowable resin-matrix composites showed the lowest layer thickness values. The resin-matrix layer thickness revealed statistical differences between traditional resin cement (groups M and B) and flowable resin-matrix composites (groups V and G) (
conclusionsThe flowable resin-matrix composites showed adequate flowing even though the loading on cementation was performed at low magnitude. Nevertheless, significant variation in thickness of the cementation layer was noticed for flowable resin-matrix composites and traditional resin-matrix cements that can occur in chair-side procedures due to the clinical sensitivity and differences in rheological properties of the materials.
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.