ArticleBDJ open2024
Flowable composite as an alternative to adhesive resin cement in bonding hybrid CAD/CAM materials: in-vitro study of micro-shear bond strength.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Bond strength of flowable dental composites in the cementation of indirect restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical performance of indirect hybrid ceramic onlay restorations cemented with injectable resin composite versus dual-cure resin cement: an 18-month randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Advances in Chairside and Restorative Dental Materials: A Systematic Review of Material Properties, Adhesive Strategies, and Long-Term Performance.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Article
- Long-term influence of applied dentin sealing techniques and luting material type on the bond durability of a resin CAD/CAM restorative material.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Different Luting Protocols on the Bond Strength of Fiber-Reinforced CAD/CAM Blocks.Polymers · 2026Article
- Does the Type of Resin Luting Material Affect the Bonding of CAD/CAM Materials to Dentin?Dentistry journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the micro-shear bond strength of light-cured adhesive resin cement compared to flowable composite to hybrid CAD/CAM ceramics. MATERIALS AND
methodsRectangular discs were obtained from polymer-infiltrated (Vita Enamic; VE) and nano-hybrid resin-matrix (Voco Grandio; GR) ceramic blocks and randomly divided according to the luting agent; light-cured resin cement (Calibra Veneer; C) and flowable composite (Neo Spectra ST flow; F), resulting in four subgroups; VE-C, VE-F, GR-C and GR-F. Substrates received micro-cylinders of the tested luting agents (n = 16). After water storage, specimens were tested for micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min cross-head speed until failure and failure modes were determined. After testing for normality, quantitative data were expressed as mean and standard deviation, whereas, qualitative data were expressed as percentages. Quantitative data were statistically analysed using Student t test at a level of significance (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsGroup GR-F showed the highest µSBS, followed by VE-C, VE-F and GR-C respectively, although statistically insignificant. All groups showed mixed and adhesive failure modes, where VE-F and GR-C showed the highest mixed failures followed by GR-C and VE-C respectively.
conclusionsAfter short-term aging, flowable composite and light-cured resin cement showed high comparable bond strength when cementing VE and GR.
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.