ArticleHeliyon2023
Improving retention of dental veneers fabricated from an experimental enamel-based biopolymer compared with CAD/CAM hybrid materials.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. 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.
- Article
- An in vitro evaluation of tensile strength of molar endocrown milled from various computer aided design and manufacturing materials.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Hybrid Ceramics Cementation Protocols: Scope Review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: CAD/CAM hybrid materials have become increasingly utilized in restorative dentistry. However, their low tensile bond strength (TBS) may lead to the detachment of minimally invasive restorations. When prepared, an experimental enamel-based biopolymer prosthesis provided a honeycomb-like interfacial layer with luting adhesives leading to a higher TBS than Ni-Cr-Be based alloy, lithium disilicate-based ceramic, and cured-resin-composite. This study aimed to compare TBSs of dental veneers fabricated from experimental biopolymer and commercial hybrid materials bonded to enamel using two different luting adhesives. Methods: Laminate veneers (4 × 4 mm) 1 mm thick were prepared from commercial CAD/CAM blocks: VITA ENAMIC, SHOFU Block HC, KATANA AVENCIA, and an experimental biopolymer. The flat bonding surface of the veneers was ground to 600-grit, followed by 50-μm alumina air-abrading for standardization. Each veneer was fixed on flat ground bovine enamel using either Super-Bond C&B or RelyX™ U200 resin (n = 10). The surface treatment and bonding procedures were treated as recommended by the manufacturers. All bonded specimens were stored in water at 37 °C for 24 h before tensile testing with a universal testing machine at a cross-headed speed of 1.0 mm/min. The fractured surface was examined with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope. TBS data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test (α = 0.05). Results: Experimental biopolymer veneers demonstrated the highest mean TBS with cohesive failure in the luting agents. Adhesive failure at the veneer side interface was found in other groups. There was no significant difference between the two luting agents. Conclusion: The results indicate that the experimental biopolymer veneer bonded to enamel provided the best retention. The TBS at the enamel-resin interface is higher than at the veneer-resin interface for all commercial CAD/CAM hybrid materials. Clinical significance: An experimental enamel-based biopolymer veneer can provide better retention than CAD/CAM hybrid materials in clinical treatment.
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.