ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2024
The effect of touch-cure polymerization on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Aging Effect on Push-Out Bond Strength of Six Resin Cements: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the impact of a novel touch-cure polymerization of dual-curing resin cement on the push-out bonding strength (PBS) of the conventional prefabricated glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) and custom-made glass fiber (GF) posts at different root sections. Methods: Forty single-root mandibular first premolars were treated endodontically and prepared for receiving the posts, the prepared roots were randomly divided into 4 groups. Group I: A prefabricated (GFRC) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE resin cement with adhesive-enhancing primer (AEP). Group II: A prefabricated (GFRC) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE without AEP. Group III: A customized (GF) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE with AEP. Group IV: A customized (GF) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE without AEP. (n = 10 for each group). The PBS was tested with a universal testing machine, and the values were analyzed with (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test at a Results: Group III revealed the greatest PBS values, followed by Group IV, Group I, and finally, Group II showed the lowest PBS values. The coronal root slices showed the highest PBS in comparison with the middle and apical third. Conclusion: The touch-cure polymerization improved the PBS of the prefabricated and customized fiber posts. Therefore, ‟touch and cure" cement may be considered a clinical alternative to conventional types of resin cement. The customized (GF) posts exhibited a higher PBS than the prefabricated (GFRC). The combination of customized posts and G-CEM ONE with AEP is recommended as a new strategic approach to improve interfacial adhesion.
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.