ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
An Assessment of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of Composites for Indirect Restoration to Enamel and Dentin.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Defined-Area Bonding Approach for Microtensile Testing: A Reliable Alternative to Monoblock Sectioning for High-Hardness Restorative Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Clinical Observations on Postless Fiber-Reinforced Composite Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth with Immediate Pre-Endodontic Dentin Sealing and an Internal Adhesive Ferrule: A Case Series.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
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
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the micro-tensile bond strength (µTBS) of two types of composites for indirect restoration, luted to enamel and dentin with self-adhesive cement. Moreover, it aimed to evaluate the impact of thermocycling on bond strength. Sixteen flat enamel and dentin surfaces of human molars were cemented to equal flat specimens of the laboratory composite Signum ceramis and the CAD/CAM block Cerasmart. Half of the specimens of the group underwent thermocycling. After that, the samples were cut into 80 beams for µTBS analysis. The data were analyzed using Levene's test and the independent sample t-test. The micro-tensile bond strength tests revealed that thermocycling significantly reduced the adhesive bond. Dentin bonds better to conventional laboratory composites. Enamel bonds are better than composite blocks for milling.
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.