ArticleBMC oral health2025
Does composite repair time affect repair protocol, immediate or delayed?
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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundComposite resin restorations frequently require repair due to fractures, marginal defects, or esthetic failures. The effectiveness of composite repair depends heavily on the surface treatment applied prior to bonding. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of various surface treatment protocols on the shear bond strength(SBS) between composite resin layers in same-visit immediate repair(IR) and delayed repair (DR) conditions, using bulk-fill and nanohybrid composite resins.
methodsTwo types of composite resin materials—NeoSpectra ST HV (nanohybrid) and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill—were tested. A total of ten surface treatment protocols were evaluated under both immediate and delayed repair conditions (n = 10 per subgroup). Following grinding with a diamond bur, the surfaces were treated with one of the following: phosphoric acid, universal adhesives (Single Bond Universal, Prime&Bond Universal), three application modes of Clearfil SE Bond (two-step, bond only without primer, or phosphoric acid application followed by bond only), Optibond FL without primer, or GC Modeling Liquid. Additionally, direct layering without any surface treatment was included as a control. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were analyzed using a stereomicroscope. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s post hoc test were used for statistical analysis (p = 0.05).
resultsIR groups showed significantly higher SBS than DR groups across both composite types. The highest SBS were observed with GC Modeling Liquid and hydrophobic bonding agents, particularly in the bulk-fill immediate repair groups. Phosphoric acid application alone, or in combination with self-etch adhesive, did not improve bond strength. Universal adhesives did not outperform hydrophobic agents in any condition. Direct layering without treatment resulted in the lowest bond strength, especially in delayed repair.
conclusionsSurface treatment protocol significantly affects the success of composite resin repair. Hydrophobic adhesives and GC Modeling Liquid proved to be the most effective options, especially for same-visit immediate repairs. Simplified approaches avoiding unnecessary etching or priming may offer clinically efficient solutions without compromising bond strength.
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.