ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Can lasers replace conventional methods in optimizing bond strength of bioactive materials?
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength of four different bioactive restorative materials to dentin prepared using either a high-speed bur or Er, Cr: YSGG laser. A total of 120 extracted human molars were divided into two groups (n = 60) based on dentin surface preparation: high-speed diamond bur or Er,Cr:YSGG laser (3 W, 20 Hz, 70% H₂O, 60% air). Each group was further divided into four subgroups (n = 15) according to the restorative material: Group I-glass hybrid (EQUIA Forte HT), Group II-bioactive resin composite (Activa BioActive-Restorative), Group III-giomer (Beautifil II), and Group IV-alkasite (Cention Forte). Materials were applied per manufacturers' instructions using a standardized Teflon mold system. After 24 h, shear bond strength was tested with a universal testing machine at 1.0 mm/min. One sample per group was examined under SEM to assess the resin-dentin interface. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Games Howell post hoc test (p < 0.05). Group IV showed the highest bond strength in both surface treatments, while Group I had the lowest (p < 0.05). In Group II, laser treatment resulted in a statistically significant reduction in bond strength compared to bur-prepared surfaces (p < 0.05), whereas surface preparation had no significant effect on the bond strength of the remaining groups. Adhesive failures were most common, though cohesive failures were more frequent in Group II-Bur and Group I-Laser. The bonding performance of bioactive restorative materials was influenced by both their composition and the dentin surface preparation method. Cention Forte showed the most reliable adhesion on both bur- and laser-prepared dentin, whereas EQUIA Forte HT exhibited lower bonding performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41266675What 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.