ReviewCureus2026
Influence of Plasma Treatment on the Bonding Strength and Hydrophilicity of Zirconia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 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
Achieving reliable adhesion between resin-based materials and zirconia remains challenging because zirconia has a chemically inert surface and low intrinsic wettability. Plasma surface treatment has been proposed as a non-destructive method to improve surface energy, hydrophilicity, and bonding performance without altering the bulk structure of zirconia. However, variations in plasma type, gas composition, exposure duration, and testing protocols have limited clear conclusions regarding its effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (reference ID: CRD42025640563). Electronic searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were performed up to January 31, 2026. Fourteen in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN (Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies) tool. Overall, plasma-treated zirconia showed improved wettability and enhanced bond strength compared with untreated controls. Several studies also reported bond strength values comparable to or greater than those achieved with alumina sandblasting, particularly when plasma treatment was combined with 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing primers. A meta-analysis showed a significant improvement in shear bond strength for plasma-treated zirconia compared with untreated zirconia (standardized mean difference (SMD) 3.04; 95% CI: 1.76-4.32), although heterogeneity was high. In the comparison with sandblasting, the primary pooled analysis was not significant, but the sensitivity analysis favored plasma treatment. Plasma surface treatment appears to be a promising strategy for improving zirconia bonding, although standardized protocols and clinical studies are still needed.
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.