ArticleBMC oral health2023
Adhesive bond strength of monolithic zirconia ceramic finished with various surface treatments.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Silica Coatings in Enhancing Resin Cement Adhesion to Zirconia: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Effect of sandblasting and MDP based primer application on the surface topography and shear bond strength of zirconia: AnF1000Research · 2025Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to investigate different surface treatments thought to increase the bond strength between zirconia ceramic and adhesive resin cement.
methodsThe samples were prepared in 15 × 10 × 2 mm dimensions by cutting off monolithic zirconia ceramic blocks (Incoris TZI; Sirona, Germany). Surface roughness measurements were made with a profilometer, the average surface roughness (Ra1) was recorded, and five different surface treatments were applied. Group 1: Control group. No surface treatment was applied. Group 2: Sandblasted with Al
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference between the groups in the Ra1 measurements (p = 0.031). There was a statistically significant difference between the Ra2 values of Groups 4 and 5 and the Ra2 values of Groups 1,2 and 3 in the Ra2 measurements (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between the SBS values of the groups (p > 0.005). Also, there was no statistically significant difference in the SBS values of all groups for the two different cements tested (p > 0.005).
conclusionsNone of the surface treatments applied to monolithic zirconia ceramic samples increased the SBS between ceramic and adhesive resin cement.
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.