ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2024
Adhesive Cementation of CAD/CAM Silica-based Ceramics: Effect of Adhesive Type and Long-term Aging on the Bond Strength to Composite Cement.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 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.
- Surface Pretreatment Protocols For Indirect/Semi-Direct Dental Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Survey and Expert Consensus.The journal of adhesive 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate the effect of adhesive type and long-term aging on the shear bond strength (SBS) between silica-based ceramics and composite cement (CC). MATERIALS AND
methodsLithium-silicate (LS), feldspathic (FD) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic (PIC) blocks were sectioned (10 x 12 x 2 mm) and divided into 24 groups considering the factors: "ceramics" (LS, FD, and PIC), "adhesive" (Ctrl: without adhesive; 2SC: 2-step conventional; 3SC: 3-step conventional; 1SU: 1-step universal), and "aging" (non-aged or aged [A]). After the surface treatments, CC cylinders (n = 15, Ø = 2 mm; height = 2 mm) were made and half of the samples were subjected to thermocycling (10,000) and stored in water at 37°C for 18 months. The samples were submitted to SBS testing (100 kgf, 1 mm/min) and failure analysis. Extra samples were prepared for microscopic analysis of the adhesive interface. SBS (MPa) data was analyzed by 3-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). Weibull analysis was performed on the SBS data.
resultsAll factors and interactions were significant for SBS (p<0.05). Before aging, there was no significant difference between the tested groups and the respective control groups. After aging, the LS_1SU (22.18 ± 7.74) and LS_2SC (17.32 ± 5.86) groups exhibited significantly lower SBS than did the LS_Ctrl (30.30 ± 6.11). Only the LS_1SU group showed a significant decrease in SBS after aging vs without aging. The LS_1SU (12.20) group showed the highest Weibull modulus, which was significantly higher than LS_2SC_A (2.82) and LS_1SU_A (3.15) groups.
conclusionNo type of adhesive applied after silane benefitted the long-term adhesion of silica-based ceramics to CC in comparison to the groups without adhesive.
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.