ArticleCureus2025
Shear Bond Strength of Artificial Teeth to Conventional and Computer-Aided Design/Computer-Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) Denture Bases: An In Vitro Comparison.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplete dentures remain essential for restoring function and aesthetics in edentulous patients; however, tooth debonding continues to be a leading cause of repair. This in vitro study aimed to compare the shear bond strengths of three types of artificial teeth (crosslinked acrylic, composite, and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing as CAD/CAM-milled teeth) bonded to conventional heat-cured polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) and CAD/CAM-milled denture base resins. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty cylindrical specimens (20 mm in height × 25 mm in diameter) were divided into two main groups (n = 30 each) based on the denture base material: conventional heat-cured PMMA and CAD/CAM-milled PMMA. Each group was subdivided (n = 10) according to tooth type: crosslinked acrylic, composite, and CAD/CAM-milled teeth. Teeth were bonded following the manufacturer's protocols for the CAD/CAM group and the standard packing technique for the heat-cured group. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using one-way and two-way analyses of variance with post-hoc tests (p < 0.05).
resultsMean shear bond strength values were as follows: conventional heat-cured base with composite teeth (272.11 ± 85.44 MPa), acrylic teeth (179.09 ± 74.71 MPa), and CAD/CAM-milled teeth (174.47 ± 43.13 MPa); CAD/CAM-milled denture base with CAD/CAM-milled teeth (359.56 ± 76.62 MPa), acrylic teeth (275.51 ± 89.69 MPa), and composite teeth (237.23 ± 75.71 MPa). Two-way analysis of variance revealed significant main effects for both denture base material and tooth type, with a highly significant interaction effect (p < 0.001, η²p = 0.28). The strongest bond was achieved with CAD/CAM-milled teeth on CAD/CAM-milled denture bases, which was significantly higher than that of all other combinations.
conclusionBond strength is highly dependent on material compatibility. The combination of CAD/CAM-milled teeth and bases from pre-polymerized high-pressure PMMA provides superior adhesion. In conventional heat-cured systems, the composite teeth yield the strongest bond. For optimal clinical durability in digital workflows, matched CAD/CAM tooth-based systems should be preferred.
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.