ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Influence of the incorporation of titanium dioxide nanofibers net on bond strength and morphology of a total etching adhesive system.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Nanoparticle Augmentation of Adhesive Systems: Impact on Tensile Strength in Fiberglass Post Placement within Root Dentin.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the nanoleakage and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of an ethanol based-adhesive containing Titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanofibers to dentin. Material and Methods: TiO2 nanofiber was produced by electrospinning and it was inserted in an ethanol-based adhesive in 0.5, 1.5 and 2.5% by weight. The original adhesive did not receive nanofiber. The middle dentin was exposed by diamond saw under water-cooling and dentin was polished with wet 600-grit SiC abrasive paper. Resin composite build-ups were applied incrementally to the dentin after adhesive application. After storage in distilled water (24 hours/37°C) the teeth were sectioned perpendicularly to the bonded interface and sticks were obtained. Twenty-five sticks per group were tested by μTBS with a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/minute. The average values (MPa) obtained in each substrate were subjected to one-way ANOVA (α=0,05) with the tooth being considered the experimental unit. The nanoleakage pattern was observed in ten sticks per group and analyzed by Chi-square test (α=0,05). Results: There was no difference in μTBS among the experimental groups. However, there was a statistically significant difference among 2.5 % nanofiber adhesive, 0.5 % nanofibers and control groups, ( Conclusions: TiO2 nanofibers in 2.5% of weight inserted in dental adhesive reduced the nanoleakage, but did not improve the μTBS to dentin.
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.