Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37687525›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Comparative Study on Interface Fracture of 4th Generation 3-Steps Adhesive and 7th Generation Universal Adhesive.

Ștefan George Călinoiu, Cornelia Bîcleșanu, Anamaria Florescu, Dan Ioan Stoia, Cătălin Dumitru, Marian Miculescu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ștefan George CălinoiuDoctoral School of Dentistry, Organizing Institution of University Doctoral Studies, "Titu Maiorescu" University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania.
Cornelia BîcleșanuFaculty of Dental Medicine, "Titu Maiorescu" University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania.
Anamaria FlorescuFaculty of Dental Medicine, "Titu Maiorescu" University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania.
Dan Ioan StoiaDepartment of Mechanics and Strength of Materials, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Politehnica University of Timisoara, No.1 Mihai Viteazu Avenue, 300222 Timisoara, Romania.ORCID 0000-0003-2106-2238
Cătălin DumitruFaculty of Dental Medicine, "Titu Maiorescu" University, 67A Gh. Petrascu Street, 040441 Bucharest, Romania.
Marian MiculescuFaculty of Material Science and Engineering, Politehnica University of Bucharest, 313 Splaiul Independentei, District 6, 060042 Bucharest, Romania.ORCID 0000-0002-2723-6713

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin-adhesive-restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine-adhesive-filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.

Indexed as

crack propagationdental adhesivesFEM analysisinterfaceSEM investigationSIFs

Identifiers

PMID37687525
PMCPMC10488864

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.