ArticleBMC oral health2024
The effect of repair protocols and chewing simulation on the microtensile bond strength of two resin matrix ceramics to composite resin.
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 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface modification effect on the repair bond strength of hybrid and non-hybrid ceramics.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the micro tensile bond strength (µTBS) of two resin matrix ceramic (RMC) blocks bonded to composite resin by using different repair protocols with and without chewing simulation (CS). MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo resin matrix ceramic blocks (Vita Enamic and Lava Ultimate) were divided into 4 groups according to the surface treatments: Bur grinding (control), Bur grinding + silane, 9.5% HF acid etching, and 9.5% HF acid etching + silane. The single bond universal adhesive was applied on all specimens after the surface treatments according to the manufacturer's instructions, it was administered actively on the treated surface for 20 s and then light cured for 10 s, followed by incremental packing of composite resin to the treated surface. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups (with/without chewing simulation for 500,000 cycles). A micro tensile bond strength test was performed for each group (n = 15). The effect of surface treatments on the materials was examined by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The micro tensile bond strength (MPa) data were analyzed with a three-way ANOVA, the independent t-test, and one-way ANOVA followed by the Tukey post-hoc test.
resultsµTBS results were significantly higher for Lava Ultimate than Vita Enamic for all the surface treatment protocols with (p < 0.01). The chewing simulation significantly negatively affected the micro-tensile bond strength (p < 0.001). Bur grinding + saline exhibited the highest bond strength values for Lava Ultimate, both with and without chewing simulation. For Vita Enamic, bur grinding + saline and HF acid + saline showed significantly higher bond strength values compared to other surface treatments, both with and without chewing simulation (p ≤ 0.05).
conclusionBur grinding + silane could be recommended as a durable repair protocol for indirect resin matrix ceramics blocks with composite resin material.
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.