ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive and Self-Etching Resin Cements to Dentin for Indirect Restorations.
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 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.
- Article
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
This study assessed and compared the shear bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etching resin cements for indirect aesthetic restorations to dentin. Four different materials, lithium disilicate ceramics, zirconia ceramics, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) composites, and hybrid materials, were used for indirect restorations cemented to dentin. The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences in shear bond strength between the investigated materials. Eighty extracted human molars were used. Eighty dentin specimens with a flat surface were prepared and randomly distributed in groups of 10 (n = 10). From each material (Cerasmart 270, Initial LiSi Blok, Katana ZR Noritake, and Crowntec Next Dent), 20 blocks were made and cemented to the dentin samples. Half of the blocks from each material were cemented to dentin using self-etching resin cement (Panavia V5), and the other half using self-adhesive resin cement (i-CEM). After the specimens were prepared, a laboratory test was conducted to evaluate the shear bond strength. The fracture type was determined using a light microscope, and SEM confirmed the results. The results were statistically analysed. All materials cemented with self-etching cements (Panavia V5) showed statistically higher shear strength values than those cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (i-CEM). In the specimen groups where self-adhesive cement (i-CEM) was used, Cerasmart 270 bonded statistically better. A statistical difference was found between all groups of materials cemented with self-etching cement. The Initial LiSi Block showed the strongest bond, followed by Katana Zr Noritake, Crowntec NextDent, and Cerasmart 270. Adhesion fracture to dentin was observed for all groups cemented with i-CEM. This study highlights the superior performance of self-etching cements in terms of shear bond strength. 10-Methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (10-MDP), a functional monomer, was found to enhance adhesion strength significantly. However, using self-adhesive cements was associated with a weaker bond to dentin, highlighting the importance of the right cementing agent in restorative dentistry.
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.