ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Evaluation of Microtensile Bond Strength of a 3D-Printed Hybrid Material Under Various Adhesive Strategies.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Microtensile Bond Strength of a 3D-Printed Hybrid Material Under Various Adhesive Strategies.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
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
objectivesPrinted dental materials have emerged to overcome the limitations associated with the subtractive CAD/CAM technologies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the optimal adhesive strategy for Permanent Crown Resin, a printed hybrid material. MATERIAL AND
methodsEighteen specimens of Permanent Crown Resin were divided into three groups of six blocks each, measuring 30 × 30 × 10 mm. A specific surface pretreatment was performed, involving two groups undergoing hydrofluoric acid etching (60 s) and sandblasting (20 s), whereas the third group remained devoid of any pretreatment. Comprehensive surface characterization was achieved using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at magnifications of 500× and 1000×. Each of the main groups was further divided into three subgroups, each containing two blocks. The paired blocks within each subgroup were then cemented to each other using different cementation protocols: a dual-cure self-adhesive resin cement RelyX
resultsSEM analysis revealed a smooth surface in the control group, whereas the HF group showed numerous micropores. The sandblasting group showed the roughest surface. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA, and a p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Regarding the μTBS test, sandblasting pretreatment combined with RelyX
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, sandblasting in conjunction with RelyX
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.