Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40158155›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair.

Merve Kütük Ömeroğlu, Melek Çam, Işıl Doğruer, Zeynep Buket Kaynar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

4 authors.

Merve Kütük ÖmeroğluFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey. mervekutuk1212@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0253-4212
Melek ÇamFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4380-0852
Işıl DoğruerFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-1404
Zeynep Buket KaynarFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2612-1009

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and adhesives on shear bond strength (SBS) in the repair of composite resin restorations.

methodsIn this study, 60 discs (2 mm x 10 mm) were prepared using a universal nanohybrid composite resin (GrandioSo, Voco, Germany). The discs were aged by exposure to 5000 thermal cycles between 5 and 55 °C for 30 s with an immersion procedure. Then samples were divided into 3 groups (n:20) according to the surface treatments (Group 1: no surface treatment, Group 2: roughening by bur, Group 3: roughening by Er, Cr: YSGG laser). Subsequently, the specimens were classified into two groups (n:10) according to the adhesive systems; a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE bond (SE)), or a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Plus (SB)). After surface treatments and adhesive applications, the same universal nanohybrid composite resin with a height of 2 mm and a diameter of 3 mm was placed in the center of the samples. The samples were then submitted to the SBS test using universal testing equipment (Autograph AGS-X; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The failure modes were examined using a stereomicroscope. The surface topography of the roughened and fractured surfaces resin composite (n = 1) was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 25 programme (p < 0.05).

resultsThe highest bond strength was observed in the laser + SE group (22.69 ± 4.49), while the lowest was recorded in the control + SE group (14.12 ± 3.00). In the SE adhesive group, no significant difference was found between the laser + SE and bur + SE groups (p > 0.05). Similarly, in the SB adhesive group, there were no significant differences among the surface roughening procedures (p = 0.078). Additionally, no significant differences were observed between the adhesives according to various surface roughening procedures. The failure mode was predominantly cohesive in old composites.

conclusionThe bond strength can be improved by surface treatments such as diamond burs, Er, Cr: YSGG laser application for better bonding strategies in the repair of nanohybrid resin composite restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in bond strength between the adhesives tested in this study.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental BondingDental Restoration RepairNanocompositesResin CementsDental Stress AnalysisHumansMaterials TestingMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningShear StrengthSurface PropertiesClearfil SE BondComposite ResinsResin CementsScotchbondComposite resinLasersRepairSurface treatments

Identifiers

PMID40158155
PMCPMC11955109

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.