ArticleBDJ open2024
Immediate and delayed micro shear bond strength evaluation of two glass ionomer cements to composite resin by using different bonding techniques-an in vitro study.
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 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.
- Effect of adhesive strategy on the shear bond strength of monochromatic and nanohybrid composite resins to glass ionomer cements in the sandwich technique.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveEvaluating immediate and delayed micro shear bond strength (µSBS) between composite resin and glass ionomer cements using different adhesive systems and mechanical surface treatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 240 specimens of glass ionomer restorative materials were divided into two groups: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) namely Riva Light Cure and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement (CGIC) namely Riva Self Cure. These were subdivided into immediate (24 h) and delayed (3 months) storage and further divided into smooth, medium, and rough surface treatment with either total etch (TE) or self-etch (SE) adhesive strategies. Composite resin was applied and µSBS of the sample was determined and failure modes were examined.
resultsImmediate µSBS of RMGIC was superior than CGIC and TE was better than SE. Within RMGIC, smooth surface has significantly higher bond strength than medium and rough stone surface treatment. Delayed µSBS of RMGIC was superior than CGIC. Within RMGIC specimens, TE and smooth and medium grit had significantly better bond strength than SE and rough grit. Within CGIC, statistically higher bond strength values were found with medium grit compared to smooth while no difference was found between TE and SE.
conclusionBonding composite resin to smooth RMGIC using TE yielded higher bond strength values than CGIC regardless of the time. Bonding composite resin immediately to CGIC is best done using a TE technique. However, delayed bonding to CGIC requires roughening of the CGIC surface prior to placement of the composite resin to obtain improved bonding.
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.