ArticleJournal of Indian Prosthodontic Society
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength at the interface of monolithic zirconia with two distinct core build-up materials: An
Article in Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength Between Monolithic Zirconia and Three Different Core Build-Up Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Bonding Shear Strength between Enamel and Dentin Feldspathic Porcelain and Two Different Monolithic Zirconia with Low and High Translucency.International 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) at the interface of monolithic zirconia with zirconomer (Zr) core build-up, a new type of glass ionomer cement to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material. Setting and Design: In vitro a comparative study. Materials and Methods: A total of 32 disk-shaped samples of monolithic zirconia and two distinct core build-up materials: Zr (n = 16) and composite resin (n = 16) were used. The two components, monolithic zirconia with Zr core build-up and monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up, were bonded using zirconia primer and self-adhesive, dual-cure cement. The samples were subsequently thermocycled, and the SBS was tested at their interfaces. The failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope. Data were evaluated using the descriptive analysis for mean, standard deviation, confidence interval, and independent t-test for intergroup comparison. Statistical Analysis Used: Descriptive analysis, independent t-test, Chi-square test. Results: The mean SBS (megapascals) of monolithic zirconia to Zr core build-up (0.74) was statistically significant when compared to monolithic zirconia with composite resin core build-up material (7.25) (P ≤ 0.001). Zirconomer core build-up showed 100% adhesive failure; composite resin core build-up had 43.8% cohesive, 31.2% mixed, and 25.0% adhesive failures. Conclusion: When evaluating the two core build-up materials' bindings to monolithic zirconia, Zr and composite resin core build-up showed statistically significant differences. Although Zr has been demonstrated to be the optimal core build-up material; however, additional investigation is required to determine how it bonds to monolithic zirconia more effectively.
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.