ArticleBMC oral health2025
Bond strength of conventional resin-based adhesive cement and self-adhesive resin cement to CAD-CAM restorative materials.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Adhesives for a Restorative Future.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored by lithium silicate-based and hybrid ceramic partial coverage restorations with different preparation designs: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Surface pretreatments and erosive aging effects on the bond strength of CAD/CAM resin-based materials with a self-adhesive resin cement.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Impact of a Novel Pretreatment on Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive to Conventional and CAD/CAM Resin Composites: In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths of four distinct CAD/CAM restorative materials using conventional resin-based adhesive cement and self-adhesive resin cement. MATERIALS AND
methodsSpecimens (14 mm × 18 mm × 2 mm) were obtained for each restorative material: IPS e.max CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent (LEICHTENSTEIN), GC Cerasmart (GC-Corp. JAPAN), Vita-Enamic (Vita-ZahnFabrik, GERMANY), and Cerec Blocks (Dentsply Sirona, USA) (n = 12). Ceramic surfaces were applided with both conventional resin-based adhesive cement (LF) (GC-LinkFORCE, GC Corp., JAPAN) and self-adhesive resin cements (CO) (G-Cem One, GC Corp., JAPAN). The shear bond strength test of 96 specimens were calculated and other 96 specimens were measured this test following thermal cycles (10000 thermal cycles at 5-55
resultsAfter thermal cycles, a significant difference was observed between the shear bond strength of LF and CO cements to all ceramics except IPS e.max CAD ceramic (p < 0.05). After thermal cycling, LF cement had the strongest shear bond strength values with GC Cerasmart and the weakest bond values with Vita Enamic. CO cement had the strongest shear bond values with Cerec Blocks ceramics and the weakest bond values with GC Cerasmart. Cohesive type fractures were the most prevalent and adhesive type fractures were the least frequent both before and after thermal cycle. The type of material had a significant effect on the type of fracture after thermal cycle application (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThermal cycle application caused a decrease in the shear bond strength values of two kind of resin cements to all ceramics. It can be concluded that self-adhesive composite resin cement (G-CemONE) are suitable for leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic and lithium disilicate ceramics, and conventional resin-based adhesive cement (GC-LinkFORCE) is suitable for resin nanoceramic material and polymer-infiltrated glass-ceramic material types.
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.