ArticlePolymers2024
Assessment of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of a Novel Bioactive Dental Restorative Material (Surefil One).
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Influence of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Resin to Cut and Uncut Enamel: An In-Vitro Study.Frontiers in 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study is to assess the micro-tensile bond strength and the mode of failure of a bioactive hybrid self-adhesive composite (Surefil one) under various dentin conditions.
methodsThirty-two extracted human molar teeth were used to test the micro-tensile bond strength of Surefil one under different dentine conditions (no treatment, 37% phosphoric acid etching, and universal adhesive) in comparison with a resin-modified glass ionomer (RIVA). All restorations were light cure-bonded onto flat dentine and then sectioned into beams. Then, fractured specimens were observed under a light microscope to evaluate the mode of failure.
resultsThe Surefil one no-treatment group (NTG) exhibited the highest micro-tensile bond strength. Furthermore, there was no statistically significant difference observed between the Surefil one adhesive group (EAG) and the Surefil one acid etch group (EG). However, compared to other groups, the resin-modified glass ionomer (RIVA) produced the lowest results, which are statistically significant.
conclusionSurefil one offers superior bond strength values when compared to resin-modified glass ionomers. Furthermore, Surefil one requires no dentin condition and has more straightforward clinical steps.
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.