ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Shear bond strength between conventional composite resin and alkasite-based restoration used in sandwich technique: An
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. 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.
- Transposed Maxillary Canines: Narrative Review with Clinical Case Report.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Effect of surface treatment on glass ionomers in sandwich restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laboratory studies.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The success of layered restorations necessitates the utilization of an improved restorative material compatible with composite restorations. Therefore, in this line of research, the strength of adhesion of conventional resin-based dental composite to different filling materials was tested. Materials and Methods: Conventional composite resin was bonded to four restorative materials (Group I: conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), Group II: resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Group III: flowable composite, and Group IV: Cention-N) received no surface treatment (Subgroup A: control), sandblasting using 50-µm aluminum oxide particles (Subgroup B), sandblasting and resin adhesive (Subgroup C), acid etch and resin adhesive (Subgroup D), or self-etch resin adhesive (Subgroup E). After 24 h, the strength of adhesion between the conventional composite resin and the other tested filling materials was estimated by using a universal testing machine and compared using one-factor analysis of variance and Tukey's method. Results: The conventional GIC had the minimum values of adhesion strength while the flowable composite and Cention-N had the maximum values of adhesion strength ( Conclusion: Cention-N sandblasted and coated with resin adhesive before the application of conventional composite resin in layered restorations is a potential alternative to GIC-based restorations and flowable composite.
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.