ArticleThe journal of advanced prosthodontics2026
Optimizing adhesive protocols for CAD-CAM restorations: Is simplification a reliable alternative to conventional silane application?
Article in The journal of advanced prosthodontics, 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis MATERIALS AND
methodsFive CAD-CAM materials were evaluated: leucite-reinforced glass ceramic (LEU), lithium disilicate (LDS), zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS), polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN), and resin nanoceramic (RNC). A total of 315 specimens (63 per material) were assigned to five groups: conventional silane application (G1, positive control), silane-containing universal adhesive (G2), single-step cementation with silane-containing self-adhesive resin cement (G3), self-etching ceramic primer (G4), and no silane application (G5, negative control). Two resin cylinders were bonded to each specimen and tested either immediately or after 10,000 thermal cycles. Micro-shear bond strength testing was performed, failure modes were analyzed microscopically, and representative specimens were examined by scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analysis was conducted using linear mixed-effects models with post-hoc Tukey tests and planned contrasts (α = .05).
resultsMaterial type, bonding strategy, aging, and their interactions significantly affected bond strength (
conclusionThe conventional three-step silane protocol remains the most reliable approach for durable bonding, while simplified strategies may represent acceptable alternatives depending on the material.
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.