ArticleBMC oral health2025
In vitro evaluation of bond strength between dental ceramics and titanium frameworks produced by additive and subtractive methods.
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 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.
- Additive manufacturing for Dentistry: A comprehensive review of techniques and applications.Progress in materials science · 2026Article
- Porcelain Fused to Titanium-Advantages and Challenges.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and titanium substructures produced by different methods.
methodsAfter designing 51 disc-shaped samples, three groups were created according to material type and manufacturing method Cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) group prepared by selective laser melting (GC), titanium group prepared by milling (GTi1) and titanium group prepared by selective laser melting (GTi2). Surface roughness values (Ra, Rz) of six samples from each group were examined and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) analyses were applied to one specimen from each group, and failures were examined using a stereomicroscope.
resultsThe mean SBS, Ra and Rz values for GC were 21.21 ± 6.15 MPa, 5.79 ± 0.58 µm and 37.54 ± 6.87 µm; GTi1 were 25.80 ± 7.79 MPa, 2.69 ± 0.41 µm and 26.05 ± 7.60 µm; GTi2 were 24.32 ± 7.07 MPa, 5.91 ± 0.51 µm and 44.46 ± 7.78 µm respectively. Although the shear bond strength did not show a significant difference between the groups, the roughness values of the GTi1 group were statistically significantly lower than those of the other groups (p < 0.05). The roughness values of the GTi2 and GC groups did not show a statistically significant difference (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe ceramic bonding of titanium specimens produced by both methods showed values similar to those of Co-Cr and ceramic bonding used in routine treatments.
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.