ArticleBMC oral health2025
Surface modification effect on the repair bond strength of hybrid and non-hybrid ceramics.
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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Isopropyl Alcohol, Tetrahydrofuran, Pyridine, and Acetonitrile on Surface Roughness, Surface Morphology, and Shear Bond Strength Between Composite Resin and Different Provisional Restorative Materials.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Managing Fractured Ceramic Restorations: Current Evidence and Best Practices-A Scoping Review.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Article
- Investigating the Effect of Saliva Contamination at Different Time Intervals on Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Dentin with Immediate Dentin Sealing.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- A Pilot Study for "In Vitro" Testing the Surface Conditioning Effects on CAD/CAM Hybrid Nanoceramic Adhesion.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Effect of surface pretreatments on surface roughness and repair bond strength of aged machinable hybrid ceramic with nanohybrid resin composite.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigated the appropriate surface treatment protocols for repairing various hybrid and non-hybrid ceramics.
methodsCeramic samples with a thickness of 2 mm were prepared from two resin-hybrid CAD/CAM blocks (Vita Enamic (hybrid-VE) and Lava Ultimate (hybrid-LU)) and two non-hybrid ceramics (VITABLOCS Mark II (non-hybrid-VM) and zirconia). The samples underwent 10,000 thermocycles. Their surfaces were then subjected to the following treatments before silanization and repair with resin composite using Tygon tubes with 1 mm diameter (n = 12): (1) no surface treatment, (2) grinding with silicon carbide, (3) sandblasting, and (4) etching with 9% hydrofluoric acid (HF). Then, ceramics were repaired using a universal adhesive agent (Clearfill Universal Bond; Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan) and composite resin. The microshear bond strength (µSBS) was measured and compared among the groups using two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThe type of ceramic and the surface treatment significantly influenced the repair µSBS (P < 0.05). The highest µSBS values for hybrid-VE, hybrid-LU, and non-hybrid-VM were respectively associated with surface preparation using silicon carbide grinding, sandblasting, and 9% HF etching (P < 0.05). For zirconia ceramics, the µSBS value was highest when treated with sandblasting, though this difference was not statistically significant. When no surface treatment was applied, or the samples were sandblasted, hybrid-LU and non-hybrid-zirconia showed the highest µSBS values (P < 0.05). When the surface was etched with 9% HF or ground with silicon carbide paper, hybrid-VE, and non-hybrid-VM demonstrated the lowest repair µSBS values, respectively (P < 0.05).
conclusionThe optimal surface treatments for repairing hybrid-VE, hybrid-LU, and non-hybrid-VM ceramics were silicon carbide grinding, sandblasting, and 9% HF etching, respectively. However, surface treatments did not significantly affect the performance of zirconia ceramics.
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.