ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2024
Bond Strength to Lithium-Disilicate Ceramic after Different Surface Cleaning Approaches.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Optimizing resin bonding to saliva-contaminated polyetheretherketone: comparative efficacy of cleaning methods.BMC oral health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the effect of different lithium-disilicate (LiSi) glass-ceramic surface decontamination procedures on the shear bond strength (SBS) to resin cement. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy CAD/CAM LiSi ceramic specimens (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar) were cut and sintered. Fifty specimens were treated with 5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 20 s, while 20 were left untreated. All 70 specimens were then contaminated with human saliva and try-in silicone paste. The following surface cleaning methods were investigated (n = 10): C: water rinsing (control); PA: 37% H3PO4 etching for 20 s; E: 70% ethanol applied for 20 s; CP: cleaning paste (Ivoclean, Ivoclar) brushed for 20 s; HFSEP: self-etching ceramic primer (Monobond Etch&Prime, Ivoclar) rubbed for 20 s; HF: 5% HF applied for 20 s or no HF etching prior to contamination; SEP: self-etching ceramic primer rubbed for 20 s and no HF etching prior to contamination. Composite cylinders were created and luted with an adhesive resin cement to the decontaminated surfaces. After storage for 24 h at 37°C, the SBS test was conducted. Two fractured specimens per group were observed under SEM to perform fractographic analysis. The data were statistically analyzed with p set at <0.05.
resultsThe type of surface cleaning approach influenced bond strength (p < 0.001). HFSEP, SEP, and HF attained higher SBS (p < 0.001) compared to other groups. None of the approaches were able to completely remove contaminants from the ceramic surfaces. SEM images showed residual traces of contaminants on CP-treated surfaces.
conclusionsThe self-etching ceramic primer enhanced bond strength to contaminated LiSi ceramic surfaces, irrespective of previous treatment with hydrofluoric acid.
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.