ArticleBMC oral health2025
Microshear bond strength of resin composite to Ti6A14V titanium alloy after different chemical and mechanical surface treatments.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effects of different surface treatments including sandblasting, 9% hydrofluoric (HF) acid, 48% sulfuric acid (SA), and silica gel plus SA on micro-shear bond strength (μSBS) of resin composite to Ti6A14V titanium alloy.
methodsIn this in vitro study, 60 Ti6A14V titanium alloy plates were randomly assigned to five experimental groups (n = 12) as follows: Group (1) untreated, Group (2) sandblasted (50 μm aluminum oxide particle), Group (3) acid etched in 9% HF for 60 s, Group (4) acid etched in 48% H
resultsThe μSBS was significantly different among the groups (P = 0.032). The mean µSBS of the control group was significantly lower than that of sandblasting (P < 0.001), SA etching (P = 0.009) and silica-SA (P = 0.003) groups. The Ra of sandblasting (P = 0.021) and silica-SA (P = 0.004) groups was significantly higher than the control group. Also, the Ra of HF acid group was significantly lower than that of sandblasting (P = 0.035) and silica-SA (P = 0.007) groups. The Rz of sandblasting group was significantly higher than all other groups (P < 0.001 for all).
conclusionWithin the study limitations, surface treatment by sandblasting resulted in the highest surface roughness and μSBS of Ti6A14V alloy-resin composite followed by silica gel-SA, SA etching, and HF.
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.