ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of low-shrinkage giomer resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in cervical carious lesions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Influence of Bioactive, Inorganic, and Organic Fillers on Basic Properties of 4-META/MMA-TBB Resin as Restorative Materials for Root Caries.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of biomechanical behavior of all-ceramic cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
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
Abstract
This article comprehensively reviews the performance of simplified direct restorative materials that have the potential to be an alternative to amalgam. Following an understanding of the material structures and clinical performances, this review provides an analysis of the bonding mechanisms and influential factors on the bond strength. These factors include substrate-related variations, involving primary vs. permanent dentin, sound- vs. caries-affected/demineralized dentin comparisons and surface-related factors and pretreatments. Special attention is given to the factors changing the substrate surface, such as different contaminants, remedy methods after contamination and different conditioning methods related to the materials. Variations in sample preparation and bond strength test parameters are also evaluated for the analysis of the outcomes. This review aims to provide an overview of the factors involved in the application procedure of direct restorations together with in vitro testing variations to guide the selection of suitable materials by understanding strengths and shortcomings.
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.