ArticleBMC oral health2026
Cytotoxicity and bonding property of biomimetic ceramic fiber-resin composites.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
Abstract
Natural dental tissues possess hierarchical microstructures that impart remarkable mechanical properties and damage tolerance, inspiring the development of biomimetic restorative materials. However, conventional dental composites lack such sophisticated architectures and face challenges in achieving reliable bonding, particularly when microstructural anisotropy is involved. This study systematically investigated the bonding performance of biomimetic ceramic fiber-resin composites featuring orthogonal plywood (OP) and double-Bouligand (DB) microstructures, addressing the critical question of how directional microarchitectures influence adhesion quality and durability. Biocompatibility was evaluated using CCK-8 assay and Calcein-AM/PI staining, and cytotoxicity was quantified by relative growth rate (RGR) and cytotoxicity grade (CTG) according to ISO 10993-5 criteria. Four surface treatment protocols—combining universal adhesive or silane coupling agent with hydrofluoric acid etching or sandblasting—were comprehensively evaluated to identify optimal bonding strategies. The superior sandblasting-silane protocol was further validated through 5,000 thermocycling cycles (5–55 °C), with detailed analysis of loading directional effects on bond strength. The OP and DB composites exhibited excellent cytocompatibility, with RGR values exceeding 90% at all time points, corresponding to cytotoxicity grades 0–1. Surface treatment significantly affected shear bond strength (SBS) (P < 0.05). The sandblasting–silane protocol produced the highest immediate SBS, with representative values of 27.99 MPa for OP (longitudinal) and 25.63 MPa for DB specimens. After thermocycling, SBS values decreased significantly in most groups (P < 0.05); however, no statistically significant differences were observed between longitudinal and transverse loading directions (P > 0.05), indicating orientation-independent bonding performance.These findings demonstrate that appropriate combined mechanical and chemical surface treatments can achieve high and directionally stable bond strength in biomimetic ceramic fiber–resin composites. Clinically, this suggests promising potential for these materials as restorative substrates requiring reliable adhesive performance. Nevertheless, the present study is limited by its in vitro design, the use of a single aging protocol, and a single resin cement system, and further in vivo and long-term studies are required to confirm clinical durability.
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.