ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparative evaluation of desensitizing agents on shear bond strength of zirconia to dentin.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of the study is to evaluate the effect of 7 different desensitizing agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of zirconia restorations to dentin with a self-adhesive resin cement and determine the failure modes.
methodsEighty molars' occlusal surfaces were ground to expose dentin and were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 10): 1. Gluma (HEMA/Glutaraldehyde) 2. Bifluoride (Sodium Fluoride/Calcium Fluoride) 3. Admira (Bis-GMA/HEMA) 4. Smart Protect (Glutaraldehyde) 5. Teethmate (Tetracalcium phosphate, Dicalcium phosphate) 6. Clinpro White (Sodium fluoride) 7. BisBlock (Oxalic acid) and 8. Control (No-treatment). After applying the agent, a self-adhesive resin cement (Rely-X U200) was used to lute zirconia discs (4 mm height and 4 mm diameter) to dentin. After stored in distilled water at 37 °C for 24 h, all groups were thermocycled for 2500 cycles between 5 ± 2 °C and 55 ± 2 °C. Specimens were submitted to SBS test with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure. SBS values were compared with ANOVA. Post-hoc multiple comparisons were performed with Dunnett T3. The failure modes of specimens were examined with stereomicroscope at a magnification of 20X and the distribution of the failure modes were evaluated with Pearson Chi-Square test.
resultsRegarding mean SBS values in MPa's; Admira (10.70 ± 3.99), Smart Protect (9.62 ± 3.93), and Gluma (8.90 ± 3.76) treatments showed higher SBS values compared to control group (p < .05) according to ANOVA. The SBS values of Teethmate (5.31 ± 2.37) and Clinpro White (4.32 ± 2.44) were higher than control group but the difference was not found significant (p > .05). BisBlock (2.33 ± 1.94) and Bifluouride (1.60 ± 1.47) groups showed the lowest SBS values but their difference between control group was not found statistically significant (p > .05). Most specimens showed adhesive failure but no statistically significant difference was found in the distributions of failure modes according to Chi-square test.
conclusionWithin the limitation of the study; Admira, Smart Protect, and Gluma increased the SBS of the zirconia restorations to dentin and can be recommended to use on prepared dentin surfaces prior to the cementation.
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.