ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Surface Morphology (via SEM) of Different Provisional Crowns and Surface Treatments to PMMA.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chairside Repair of Provisional Restorative Materials: Effects of Material Type, Repair Protocol, and Thermocycling on Shear Bond Strength.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Surface Morphology (via SEM) of Different Provisional Crowns and Surface Treatments to PMMA.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose of the Study: To compare the shear bond strengths (SBSs) of different provisional crown materials with various surface treatments when relined with autopolymerizing polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA). Materials and Methods: Part 1: Seventy-five specimens were divided into five groups: PMAC (autopolymerizing PMMA), PMAM (CAD/CAM system PMMA), PMAD (3D-printed PMMA), PLAI (injectable polylactic acid [PLA]), and PLAD (3D-printed PLA). All specimens were surface-treated by sandblasting followed by 180 s of MMA application, then relined with autopolymerizing PMMA. Part 2: Forty-five PLAD specimens were divided into three groups: PLAD (control), PLAD MC (methylene chloride treatment), and PLAD AT (acetone treatment), then relined with autopolymerizing PMMA. All samples underwent thermocycling before being evaluated for SBS with a universal testing machine (Shimadzu, Japan). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD at a significance level of Result: In Part 1, the mean SBS values in MPa were: PMAC (26.85 ± 1.31), PMAM (22.92 ± 1.20), PMAD (13.98 ± 1.20), PLAI (10.19 ± 1.59), and PLAD (8.44 ± 1.14). Significant differences were found between all groups ( Conclusion: The PMAC group achieved the highest SBS among all tested materials. Surface treatment of PLAD with methylene chloride or acetone did not significantly improve SBS compared to the untreated control.
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.