ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2024
Reliability of an Innovative Slab Shear versus Microtensile Bond Strength Test: Mechanical and Finite Element Analysis.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of Occlusal Cusp Inclination and Restoration Thickness on the Biomechanical Performance of Lithium Disilicate Molar Endocrowns: A 3D Finite Element Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Article
- Can the Remaining Coronal Tooth Structure Influence the Mechanical Behavior of Nonpost Full Crowns?European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
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 at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of slab shear bond strength test (Slab_SBS) versus the microtensile in evaluation of the bond strength of different substrates. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-eight extracted caries-free human third molars were utilized for teeth specimens' preparation. After flattening of all molars' occlusal table, the specimens were divided into two groups based on the type of utilized restorative material: nanohybrid resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI). Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups according to the subsequently applied bond strength test and specimen width; microtensile bond strength test (μTBS), Slab_SBS [2 mm] and Slab_SBS [3 mm]. Both testing methods were additionally applied on CAD/CAM specimens, nanohybrid resin composite blocks (composite-to-composite), and ceramic blocks (ceramic-to-ceramic). CAD/CAM specimens were prepared and cemented and then sectioned and subdivided as followed for teeth specimens' preparation. Pretest failures (PTF), bond strength, and failure mode of each specimen were recorded. Representative three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA) models were developed to simulate μTBS and Slab_SBS specimens. Data were statistically analyzed using Shapiro-Wilk test and Weibull analysis.
resultsPretest failures were only noted in the μTBS subgroups. Slab_SBS provided comparable bond strength to the μTBS of all substrates with adhesive mode of failure.
conclusionSlab_SBS is easier to prepare with consistent and predictable outcome with no pretest failures during specimen preparation and better stress distribution.
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.