ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2024
Effect of resin cements on the bond strength of three types of glass fiber post systems to intraradicular dentin.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the Bond Strength of Silane-Treated Glass Fiber Posts at Different Solvent Evaporation Times: An In Vitro Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Performance of CBCT in Detecting Different Types of Root Fractures with Various Intracanal Post Systems.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- AI-powered finite element analysis for predicting fracture patterns in endodontically treated teeth restored with posts.Bioinformation · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rehabilitating teeth after root canal treatment often requires the use of glass fiber posts (GFPs) to retain the final restorations, so the choice of resin cement is critical for bond strength (BS) and treatment success.
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different GFP systems on BS to intraradicular dentin using two dual-curing resin cement types. MATERIALS AND
methodThirty bovine incisors with wide canals were filled endodontically with gutta-percha and epoxy resin sealer. Initially, the canal filling was removed, and 4 mm of the apical seal was left intact. The teeth were divided into three groups according to the GFPs used: AP (anatomical posts - prefabricated GFP (Reforpost #2, Angelus®) relined with composite resin (Filtek Z350, 3M ESPE); SPLENDOR (Splendor SAP, Angelus®), and milled CAD/CAM (FiberCAD, Angelus®). Posts were fixed with conventional (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) or self-adhesive resin cement (RC) (RelyX U200, 3M ESPE), following the manufacturer's instructions. After 48 h, the roots were sectioned into thirds and subjected to pushout BS testing using a universal testing machine. BS data were analyzed using Wilcoxon and Mann- Whitney U tests. Failure modes were assessed with Fisher's Exact test (α=0.05).
resultsIn the apical and middle root sections, BS was similar in the AP and Splendor groups, both of which performed better than the milled CAD/CAM group (p≤0.05). In the cervical section, BS was significantly higher for the anatomical posts than for Splendor and milled CAD/CAM posts. Self-adhesive RC promoted statistically lower BS compared to conventional RC for the milled CAD/CAM post in the cervical and middle thirds (p≤0.05). Self-adhesive RC provided statistically higher bond strength than conventional RC for the anatomical post in the apical third (p≤0.05). No significant difference in failure modes was observed between resin cements and different root sections (p>0.05).
conclusionThe BS of the GFP system was affected by resin cement type and root section, with composite resin-relined anatomically shaped posts generally performing better.
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.