ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Shear bond strength evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on pretreated carious dentin-influence on silver diamine fluoride, potassium iodide, and glutathione.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
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
Background: Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) has gained popularity for its caries-arresting properties, yet its tendency to cause esthetic concerns due to black-staining limits its widespread acceptance. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of Activa BioActive and Giomer restorative material with different protocols of SDF pretreatment on carious dentin. Materials and Methods: Ninety-two extracted teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, sectioned 1 mm into dentin, mounted in acrylic resin and randomly divided into four ( Statistical Analysis: Independent Results: Giomer exhibited better mean bond strength with SDF, SDF + KI, and SDF + GSH (6.56, 4.67, and 3.34 mega-pascals [MPa], respectively) compared to Activa BioActive (3.42, 3.27, and 2.96 MPa, respectively). Conclusion: This study contributes to understanding the interplay between SDF application protocols, esthetic concerns, and the adhesive properties of bioactive restorative materials. Giomer exhibited enhanced bond strength after SDF application, unlike Activa BioActive. In addition, incorporation of KI or GSH adversely affected the bond strength of both the restorative materials, underscoring the critical need for cautious clinical application. Clinical Relevance: This study highlights the importance of selecting appropriate dentin pretreatment agents to maximize the bond strength of bioactive restorative materials with carious dentin. SDF application significantly enhanced the bond strength of Giomer with carious dentin compared to Activa BioActive, thus, making it a good choice for restoring nonesthetic areas. In addition, the application of KI or GSH to mitigate discoloration of carious dentin negatively affected the bond strength of both, Activa BioActive and Giomer. Thus, the clinicians should weigh the benefits of SDF against potential bond strength reductions when using KI or GSH, especially for esthetic restorations.
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.