ArticleBMC oral health2025
Veneer type determines shear bond strength to CAD/CAM multilayer glass-fiber-reinforced polymer frameworks after thermomechanical aging.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
Abstract
backgroundThis study tested the null hypothesis (H0) that the type of veneering material would have no effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) to multilayer glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (MLG-FRP) frameworks.
methodsEighty-four specimens were prepared from Trinia and Zantex CAD/CAM discs (10 mm diameter, 1 mm thickness) and divided into six subgroups (n = 14). Each subgroup was veneered with composite resin (Ceramage, CE), milled hybrid ceramic (CeraSmart, CS), or 3D-printed hybrid ceramic (VarseoSmile Crown Plus, VS). All specimens underwent thermomechanical aging (240,000 chewing cycles; 5000 thermal cycles at 5–55 °C). SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were classified under a stereomicroscope (20×). Premature test failures (PTFs) were coded as 0 MPa in the ITT analysis, with an additional PP analysis excluding PTFs, and data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA with Tukey’s post-hoc test (α = 0.05) including Shapiro–Wilk, Levene, partial η², and Hedges g (95% CI).
resultsThe null hypothesis that veneering material does not affect bond strength was rejected. Veneering material significantly affected shear bond strength (SBS) (ITT: F = 5.66, p = 0.005; PP: F = 4.30, p = 0.018), while MLG-FRP type and interaction were not significant (p > 0.05). In intention-to-treat analysis (PTFs = 0 MPa), composite resin (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66 MPa; 95% CI: 11.88–13.86) outperformed milled (CS: 9.19 ± 6.16 MPa) and 3D-printed hybrids (VS: 9.02 ± 4.74 MPa). Per-protocol analysis confirmed this trend (CE: 12.87 ± 2.66 MPa > CS: 12.87 ± 2.04 ≈ VS: 10.99 ± 2.25). Effect sizes were large (Hedges g up to 1.2). Kaplan–Meier analysis showed 100% survival in CE, significantly higher than CS (p = 0.002) and VS (p = 0.02), with no difference between CS and VS. Failures were mainly adhesive (> 90%).
conclusionsThe choice of veneering material is a critical determinant of bond strength to MLG-FRP frameworks. Composite resin provided significantly stronger and more durable adhesion than hybrid ceramics under simulated aging, supporting its use for long-term clinical reliability.
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.