ArticleOdontology2026
Effect of root canal molding method on bond strength and cement thickness of milled fiber posts.
Article in Odontology, 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
This study evaluated the bond strength (BS), cement thickness, gap formation, voids, and failure modes of milled fiberglass posts (FGPs). Thirty single-rooted premolars underwent endodontic treatment and were decoronated. Specimens were divided into two experimental groups based on the canal molding technique: acrylic resin (AR) pattern (n = 15) and silicone molds (n = 15). After scanning, retainers were milled from a fiberglass block (Fiber CAD, Angelus) and cemented with dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200, 3 M ESPE). Radiographs assessed gap presence. The roots were sectioned to obtain 1-mm slices from each root third-one for push-out BS testing and another for scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis to measure cement thickness (CT) and voids at the adhesive interface. Data on gaps, BS, voids, and CT were statistically analyzed (α = 5%). In the cervical third, the silicone mold showed higher BR compared with the AR technique (p < 0.05). In the apical third of the root, the AR technique showed higher BS than the silicone mold technique (p < 0.05). Regardless of the root third, CT was significantly greater in the AR technique (p < 0.05). Regardless of the technique, CT was lower in the cervical third than in the middle and apical thirds (p < 0.05). The molding technique did not affect gap (p > 0.05). In the apical third, the percentage of voids was higher in the silicone mold group (80.0%) compared with the AR pattern group (20.0%) (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that the molding technique affected the BS of milled FGPs depending on the root third. Although the AR pattern resulted in greater CT, fewer voids were observed in the middle and apical root thirds compared with the silicone molding technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41989531What 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.