ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Effect of silane treatment and resin cement type on bond strength to three-dimensional printed restorative resin: an in vitro experimental study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 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
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of different resin cements to three-dimensional (3D)-printed restorative resins and to investigate the effects of silane treatment and substrate type on bonding performance. Methods: Four resin cements-three self-adhesive and one adhesive-were applied to two types of 3D-printed resins: ODS Permanent Resin (OPR) and Graphy Permanent Resin (GPR). Each substrate was tested with and without silane treatment. SBS was measured, and the failure modes were classified. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to analyze surface morphology of the 3D-printed substrates. Statistical analyses were performed to determine the effects of cement type, silane application, and substrate type on SBS. Results: Resin cement type significantly influenced SBS, with Clearfil SA (Kuraray) exhibiting the lowest values, while the other cements demonstrated comparable performance. Silane treatment and substrate type did not show statistically significant effects on SBS. SEM analysis revealed smoother surfaces in OPR compared to GPR. Failure mode analysis showed predominantly cohesive failures for OPR, whereas GPR exhibited more adhesive and mixed failures. Conclusions: Resin cement selection plays a crucial role in achieving optimal bond strength to 3D-printed restorative resins. Silane application provided limited benefits for filler-deficient substrates, indicating that alternative surface treatments may be necessary.
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.