ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Surface pretreatment and cement influence on bond strength of three-dimensional printed permanent restorations.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Indirect permanent restorations re-establish strength, aesthetics, and function in compromised teeth. Three-dimensional (3D) printing has expanded to permanent restorations. Cementation and surface pretreatment critically influence adhesion and longevity, yet optimal protocols for 3D-printed restorations remain insufficiently established. Aims: Evaluate the influence of surface pretreatment, cement type, and their combined effects on tensile bond strength (TBS), surface topography, and roughness of a definitive 3D-printed resin. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty cubic specimens were 3D-printed with VarseoSmile Crown Plus. For surface pretreatment analysis, specimens were bonded with adhesive resin cement (ARC) after one of four protocols: No pretreatment (Control), Al Statistical Analysis: One-way ANOVA was conducted. Bonferroni post hoc testing was performed for pairwise comparisons, with a significance level set at α =0.05 for all tests. Results: TBS was significantly influenced by pretreatment ( Conclusions: Cement type influenced critically on the TBS of the 3D permanent restoration; ARC protocols incorporating silane offered superior outcomes. None of the surface pretreatment protocols enhanced significantly TBS, and minimally influenced surface roughness.
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.