ArticleScientific reports2026
Micro-shear bond strength of 3D printed hybrid ceramic with non-thermal plasma surface treatment: in-vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The optimal surface treatment for developing a durable bond of dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement and 3D printed hybrid ceramic has not yet been established. To evaluate the effect of Non-Thermal Atmospheric Plasma (NTAP), sandblasting (SB), and a combination of both techniques on Micro-Shear Bond Strength (µSBS) of dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement bonded to 3D printed hybrid ceramic after thermocycling, and assess the failure mode using SEM. A total of 75 resin tags of dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement (TheraCem) were cemented to fifteen discs of 3D Printed Hybrid Ceramic (Saremc- Print Crowntec) (five resin tags/ disc). Specimens were allocated into five groups according to discs’ surface treatment (n = 15); PL group: specimens were treated with NTAP, S50 group: specimens were treated with 50 μm AL2O3 SB, S110 group: treated with 110 μm AL2O3 SB, SP50 group: treated with 50 μm AL2O3 SB followed by NTAP, and SP110 group: treated with 110 μm AL2O3 SB followed by NTAP. Resin cylinders, 0.8 mm in diameter and 1 mm height, were cemented to discs. The µSBS test was performed using a universal testing machine after thermocycling. SEM was used to analyze the failure mode. Data were analyzed using Welch one-way ANOVA followed by the Games-Howell post hc test. A significant difference between groups (P = 0.026). The highest value was measured in SP50 (2.70 ± 0.49) (MPa), followed by SP110 (2.37±0.38) (MPa), then PL (2.35 ± 0.57) (MPa), and S110 (2.18 ± 0.31) (MPa), while the lowest value was found in S50 (2.12 ± 0.75) (MPa). Post hoc pairwise comparisons showed SP50 to have significantly higher values than S110 and S50 (P < 0.05). NTAP, particularly when combined with 50 μm sandblasting, improved µSBS to 3D-printed hybrid ceramics under the conditions of this in-vitro study. Clinical validation is recommended.
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.