ArticleCureus2023
A Comparative Study of the Repair Bond Strength of New Self-Adhesive Restorative Materials With a Resin Composite Material.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of PVM/MA Copolymer on Dentin Bond Durability.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Repair Bond Strength of Ion-Releasing Versus Conventional Resin Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Elemental and micromorphological analysis of ion releasing restoration/carious dentin interface.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of surface treatment on glass ionomers in sandwich restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laboratory studies.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2025Article
- Fluoride release and flexural strength of four ion-releasing restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of clinical and experimental 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the present study is to compare the repair bond strengths (RBSs) of Cention-N (light-cure and self-cure modes), Equia Forte HT Fil and a nanohybrid resin composite. MATERIALS AND
methodsEquia Forte HT Fil (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Cention-N (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Filtek Z550 (3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) were used in this study. Equia Forte HT Fil (EQF), Cention-N self-cure (CSC), Cention-N light-cure (CLC) and Filtek Z550 (Z550) groups were formed. A total of 40 samples were prepared; 10 samples in each group (n = 10). After the polymerization was completed according to the manufacturer's instructions, the samples were polished with OptiDisc (Kerr Corporation, Orange, USA) for 5 s each, from extra-course to extra-fine. After all samples were stored in 37°C water for 24 h, 10,000 cycles of brushing simulator and thermal cycles were applied to the samples. The samples were prepared in accordance with the selected repair protocol, and microshear bond strength (µSBS) test was performed. Fracture analysis on debonded surfaces was visualized by scanning electron microscopy. The conformity of the data to normal distribution was analyzed by the Shapiro-Wilk test. Multiple comparisons were performed using Dunn's test.
resultsZ550 showed significantly higher µSBS as compared to the other three groups. There is no difference between CSC, CLC and EQF.
conclusionThe use of Cention-N's self-cure or light-cure mode did not affect the RBS values. The RBS values of Cention-N and Equia Forte HT Fil materials are lower than those of the composite resin material.
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.