ArticleOdontology2024
Physicochemical and mechanical properties of preheated composite resins for luting ceramic laminates.
Article in Odontology, 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.
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
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
This study analyzed and compared the physicochemical and mechanical properties of preheated resin composite with light-cured resin cement for luting indirect restorations. 210 specimens of resin cement/resin composite were prepared according to preheating treatment heated (Htd) or not (NHtd). Light-cured resin cement (Variolink Veneer, Ivoclar), and resin composite (Microhybrid-Z100, 3 M; Nanohybrid-Empress direct, Ivoclar; and Bulk fill-Filtek One, 3 M) were used (n = 10). Resin cement specimens were not preheated. The response variables were (n = 10): film thickness, microhardness, liquid sorption and solubility. Data were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post-test (α = 0.05). Bulk fill NHtd resin had the highest film thickness values (p < 0.001). Microhybrid and nanohybrid Htd resins had the smallest thicknesses and did not differ from the cement (p > 0.05). The highest microhardness values were found for Bulk fill NHtd and Bulk fill Htd resins. The nanohybrid and microhybrid Htd resins showed the lowest microhardness values, with no difference in cement (p > 0.05). For liquid sorption, there was no significant difference between the groups (p = 0.1941). The microhybrid Htd resin showed higher solubility values than the other materials (p = 0.0023), but it did not differ statistically from resin cement (p > 0.05). Preheating composite resins reduced the film thickness. After heating, nanohybrid and Bulk fill resins retained stable microhardness, sorption, and solubility values.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38305943What 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.