ArticleBMC oral health2024
Shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based cements to glass ionomers.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Shear Bond Strength Between Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials and Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Faster-setting calcium silicate cements-composite bonding: effect of adhesive application mode.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Shear Bond Strength of Biointeractive Restorative Materials to NeoMTA Plus and Biodentine.Polymers · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Effect of Chitosan-Based Irrigation Solutions on the Bond Strength of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate to Bulk-Fill Composite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA shear bond strength between the biomaterial and restorative material is crucial for minimizing bacterial microleakage and ensuring a favorable long-term prognosis for vital pulp therapy. This study aimed to conduct a comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength between calcium silicate-based biomaterials utilized in vital pulp treatment and various glass ionomer cement materials, both with and without the application of adhesive agents.
methodsA total of 270 acrylic blocks, each featuring cavities measuring 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth, were prepared. Calcium silicate-containing biomaterials (ProRoot MTA, Medcem Pure Portland Cement, and Medcem MTA), following manufacturers' instructions, were placed within the voids in the acrylic blocks and allowed to set for the recommended durations. The biomaterial samples were randomly categorized into three groups based on the restorative material to be applied: conventional glass ionomer cement, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and bioactive restorative material. Using cylindrical molds with a diameter of 3.2 mm and a height of 3 mm, restorative materials were applied to the biomaterials in two different methods, contingent on whether adhesive was administered. After all samples were incubated in an oven at 37 °C for 24 h, shear bond strength values were measured utilizing a universal testing device. The obtained data were statistically evaluated using ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests.
resultsThe highest shear bond strength value was noted in the Medcem MTA + ACTIVA bioactive restorative material group with adhesive application, while the lowest shear bond strength value was observed in the ProRoot MTA White + Equia Forte HT Fil group without adhesive application (P < 0.05).
conclusionActiva Bioactive Restorative may be considered a suitable restorative material in combination with calcium silicate-based biomaterials for vital pulp treatment. The application of adhesives to calcium silicate-based biomaterials can effectively address the technical limitations.
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.