ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
The Effect of Different Chemical Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of Resin-Matrix Ceramic Repaired with Resin Composite.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Comparative effects of plasma activation and monomer infiltration on the surface characteristics and wettability of 3D-printed permanent crown resin.Journal of dental sciences · 2026Article
- Shear Bond Strength of Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives in Repairing Aged 3D-Printed Provisional Restorations With Flowable Composite: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study investigates the effect of different chemical surface treatment protocols with different functional monomers of universal adhesives on the shear bond strength between resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty resin-matrix ceramics (Shofu block HC) were built and designed into eight groups of ten specimens and surface treated with HC primer (HC) and/or three universal adhesives (single bond universal [SBU], Scotchbond universal plus [SBP], and Tetric N-bond universal [TNU]) assigning follows; group 1, nonsurface treated; group 2, HC; group 3, SBU; group 4, HC + SBU; group 5, SBP; group 6, HC + SBP; group 7, TNU; group 8, HC + TNU. A template was put on the specimen center, and then pushed packable resin composite. Mechanical testing machinery was used to examine the samples' shear bond strength (SBS) values. To examine failure patterns, the debonded specimen surfaces were examined by a stereomicroscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The one-way analysis of variance method was used to evaluate the data, and the Tukey's test was used to determine the significant level (
resultsThe highest SBS was obtained in group 6 (39.25 ± 1.65 MPa). Group 1 (4.15 ± 0.54 MPa) had the lowest SBS. Group 6 exhibited the highest percentage of cohesive failure patterns (70%). High SBS values were frequently correlated with the surface treatment groups and the cohesive failure patterns.
conclusionThe application of HC primer prior to the universal adhesive is an alternative protocol for enhancing the repair bond strength between resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite interfaces. Moreover, the application of HC primer prior to the SBP is the best strategy for resin-matrix ceramic and resin composite repairs.
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.