Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39917684›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2024

Abdulaziz A Alzaid, Khalid K Alanazi, Maha N Alharbi, Lulu A Alyahya, Hatem Alqarni, Mohammed Alsaloum, Hayam Alfallaj, Ghada S Alotaibi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Abdulaziz A AlzaidRestorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid K AlanaziConservative Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam bin Abdulaziz University, Al-kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Maha N AlharbiKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Lulu A AlyahyaKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hatem AlqarniRestorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed AlsaloumRestorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Hayam AlfallajRestorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ghada S AlotaibiKing Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The growing demand for orthodontic treatment in patients irrespective of age highlights the need for effective bonding of brackets to provisional crowns (PCs). Aims and objectives: This study evaluates the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to 3D-printed and milled PC materials, comparing the effects of hydrofluoric acid (HFA) and phosphoric acid (PA) etching. Materials and methods: Forty cylinders were fabricated using a 3D printer with hybrid resin, and forty were milled from cross-linked polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) resin. Stainless steel brackets were bonded with light-cured composite resin. Twenty specimens from each group were treated with 9.5% HFA, while the rest of the specimens received 37% PA. Post-bonding, specimens underwent thermocycling and were examined with SEM. SBS testing followed ISO/TS 11405-2015 guidelines. The failure patterns and bond interface were assessed by the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data was analyzed using ANOVA, Tukey's test. Results: In 3D-printed materials, HFA etching yielded a significantly higher bond strength (12.59 ± 2.64 MPa) than PA etching (7.77 ± 0.83 MPa). The bond strength was inferior in milled materials: HFA (5.98 ± 0.59 MPa) and PA (5.66 ± 0.65 MPa) with no significant difference between both surface treatments. When each material was evaluated separately, a significant difference in SBS was found for surface treatments in 3D-printed materials ( Conclusion: HFA etching improves SBS in 3D-printed PC, while in milled materials, the choice of etching agent has minimal effect.

Indexed as

adhesive performancedental materialsorthodontic bondingsurface modificationtemporary restorations

Identifiers

PMID39917684
PMCPMC11797867

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.