ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2026
A Defined-Area Bonding Approach for Microtensile Testing: A Reliable Alternative to Monoblock Sectioning for High-Hardness Restorative Materials.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test is the gold standard for evaluating adhesive performance in restorative dentistry. However, the conventional non-trimming technique-referred to in this study as the monoblock sectioning technique (MST)-is difficult to apply to hard and brittle CAD/CAM materials such as zirconia and ceramics, thereby limiting test reproducibility. This study compared a newly developed defined-area bonding (DAB) method with MST to determine whether DAB could serve as a reliable specimen preparation technique for μTBS testing.
methodsCAD/CAM resin blocks and resin core materials were bonded using either ESTECEM II or Panavia V5. MST specimens were obtained by bonding the blocks first and subsequently sectioning them into individual beams. In contrast, DAB specimens were produced by pre-shaping the sticks and bonding them within a defined 1 mm
resultsMST produced significantly higher μTBS values than DAB (
conclusionsAlthough MST yielded higher μTBS overall, the DAB method produced bond strengths equivalent to the MST peripheral region and demonstrated consistent fracture characteristics. Because DAB requires minimal cutting, it offers a promising, reproducible approach for μTBS testing of high-hardness materials that are otherwise difficult to section.
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.