ArticleOdontology2026
Influence of surface treatment and cement type on the bond strength of additively manufactured permanent resin materials.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) of two dual-cure resin cements to a stereolithography-fabricated 3D-printed permanent crown material after various surface pretreatment protocols. Disc-shaped specimens were fabricated from a permanent crown resin (Permanent Crown, Formlabs) and post-processed according to the manufacturer's instructions. After standardized surface preparation, specimens (n = 48) were randomly assigned to six experimental groups (n = 8), based on surface treatment (sandblasting, silane application, or 9% hydrofluoric acid etching) and resin cement type (Panavia V5 or Variolink DC). Resin cements were polymerized according to the manufacturers' recommendations, and specimens underwent thermocycling (5000 cycles, 5-55 °C, 30 s dwell time). Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and failure modes were analyzed under optical microscopy. Statistical analysis was performed using two-way ANOVA and Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo estimation (α = 0.05). Surface pretreatment protocol and resin cement type significantly influenced SBS values, with two-way ANOVA revealing significant main effects for surface pretreatment protocol (F = 14.376, p < 0.001) and resin cement type (F = 5.429, p = 0.025), whereas their interaction was not statistically significant (F = 1.744, p = 0.187). Sandblasting yielded the highest SBS values, followed by hydrofluoric acid etching and silane application. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences among the surface pretreatment protocols. Variolink DC demonstrated significantly higher SBS values than Panavia V5. No significant differences were observed in failure mode distribution among the groups according to Fisher's exact test with Monte Carlo estimation (Monte Carlo p = 0.369). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, both surface treatment strategy and resin cement selection significantly affected the bonding performance of the tested 3D-printed permanent resin material, with sandblasting and Variolink DC showing superior results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42295539What 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.