ArticlePolymers2025
Effect of Surface Treatments on Repair Bond Strength of Aged Bulk-Fill Resin Composites.
Article in Polymers, 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.
- Article
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Influence of surface pretreatments on the repair bond strength of 3D-printed resin used for permanent restorations: anFrontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of laser pulse energy and repair composite viscosity on the repair shear bond strength of aged bulk-fill resin composites.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Repair bond strength of composite resin to additively manufactured permanent resin materials: a comparative evaluation of light-cure, self-cure, and dual-cure universal adhesives.BMC oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the influence of different surface treatments and composite materials on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of repaired aged bulk-fill resin composite restorations, aligning with the principles of minimal intervention dentistry. Seventy-two specimens of bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram) were prepared, sectioned into bars (1 × 1 × 5 mm), and subjected to thermocycling to simulate aging. Specimens were randomly allocated into six groups (n = 12) based on surface treatment and repair material: phosphoric acid etching followed by repair with either Tetric EvoCeram (Group 1) or Filtek Z350 XT (Group 2); diamond bur roughening followed by repair with Tetric EvoCeram (Group 3) or Filtek Z350 XT (Group 4); and air abrasion followed by repair with Tetric EvoCeram (Group 5) or Filtek Z350 XT (Group 6). μTBS testing was performed using a universal testing machine, and failure patterns were examined under a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification. The highest bond strength values were observed in Groups 5 and 6 (air abrasion), followed by Group 3 (diamond bur). Groups 1, 2, and 4 showed significantly lower bond strength values (
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.