ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Effect of chemical surface treatments on the repair of composite restorations.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Repair of resin composite restorations consists in a more conservative solution compared to complete replacement. The objective of the present study was to evaluate different surface treatment protocols and their effects on the adhesive interface between the base and the repair resin composite, considering both new and aged restorations. Material and Methods: This study evaluated six resin composites (Admira Fusion Xtra/ADM, Filtek Supreme Flowable/FSF, Filtek One/FO, Vitra/VIT, Filtek Supreme/FS, Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable/FBF), five surface treatments (Hydrofluoric acid 120s+silane/HFs, Phosphoric acid 30s/P30, Phosphoric acid 30s+silane/P30s, Sof-lex+phosphoric acid 30s/SP30, Sof-lex+phosphoric acid 30s+silane/SP30s), and two repair timepoints (immediate and after 1 year simulated aging aged). Forty disks for each resin were divided into 10 groups according to surface treatment and repair timepoints ( Results: All factors and their interactions were significant for both shear bond and contact angle tests ( Conclusions: Despite a tendency for higher results when mechanical roughening is associated with Scotchbond Universal, there is not a clear difference to justify its use in most of the resin composites. Furthermore, most of the surface treatments performed similarly, regardless of the base resin composite.
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.