ArticlePloS one2026
Effect of luting materials and root third on glass fiber posts bonding strength after hydrothermal aging.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Push-Out Bond Strength Between CAD/CAM-Milled and Anatomically Customized Fiber Posts: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of the problemTeeth with extensive coronal destruction face the challenge of retaining the restorative materials; however, glass fiber posts cemented with resin materials can help to address the issue. The retention of these posts depends on the bond strength to the dentin structure and may vary significantly along the root thirds. PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different luting materials and root thirds on the bonding strength of glass fiber posts to radicular dentin after hydrothermal aging. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy bovine incisors were divided into 7 groups (n = 10), according to the luting materials: Panavia V5 (PV5), Rebilda DC (RDC), LuxaCore Z (LCZ), Allcem Core (ACC), RelyX Ultimate (RXU), RelyX U200 (RXU200) or Fuji Plus (FP). After posts cementation, the roots were thermocycled (10,000 cycles; 5-55°C), sectioned into thirds, and tested for push-out bond strength (2.0 kN; 0.5 mm/min). Failure patterns were classified using a stereomicroscope, according to the material and root third. Data were statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
resultsBond strength significantly differed among root thirds for PV5, ACC, RXU, and RXU200 (p < 0.05), while no significant differences were found for RDC, LCZ, and FP (p ≥ 0.05). PV5 and RXU exhibited the highest overall bond strength values. PV5 presented means of 14.97 ± 3.68 MPa (cervical), 11.08 ± 3.12 MPa (middle), and 10.47 ± 2.45 MPa (apical), while RXU showed 16.97 ± 4.22 MPa, 16.48 ± 3.61 MPa, and 6.51 ± 1.26 MPa, respectively. Overall, PV5 and RXU demonstrated superior and more consistent bond strength across root thirds, whereas the other cements displayed lower and more heterogeneous results.
conclusionsThe luting material influenced the bond strength of glass fiber posts to intraradicular dentin. Dual-cure resin cements with self-etch adhesive systems that contain functional monomers, such as PV5 and RXU, achieved more predictable adhesion, particularly in deep and complex regions. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Analysis of bond strength and failure patterns supports clinical decision-making by identifying luting cements with superior retention, even in challenging regions, contributing to greater treatment longevity.
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.