ArticleBMC oral health2026
"Influence of macroretention in polymer-infiltrated ceramic network- and zirconia crowns and different roughness values of titanium bases on adhesive bond strength of hybrid abutment crowns: an in vitro study".
Article in BMC oral health, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTwo-piece hybrid abutment crowns (HACs) are CAD/CAM-fabricated implant restorations adhesively bonded to prefabricated titanium bases (Ti-bases). Since adhesive bond represents a potential weakness, methods to enhance long-term durability are being investigated. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of additional macroretention, specifically a circumferential groove, incorporated into polymer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) and zirconia crowns, and two Ti-base sandblasting protocols on adhesive bond strength of HACs.
methodsNinety Ti-bases, 45 zirconia and 45 PICN crowns were divided into six groups (N = 15). Prior to conventional cementation (Panavia V5, Kuraray) of zirconia control group (Z1), Ti-bases and internal crown surfaces were sandblasted (Al₂O₃; 50 μm; 1.0 bar) and treated with MDP primer. In PICN control group (H1), Ti-bases were sandblasted identically and pretreated with Adiva M-Prime. Internal surfaces of PICN crowns were etched (5% hydrofluoric acid) and primed with Adiva C-Prime. In Z2 and H2, a circular groove in the internal crown surface was prepared as a macroretention in addition to conventional pretreatment as performed in Z1 and H1. Z3 and H3 were also conditioned conventionally, as in Z1 and H1, but Ti-bases were sandblasted with 250 μm at 2.0 bar. After sandblasting, surface roughness values (RV) of Ti-bases were measured. Following thermocycling, tensile shear test was performed, and failure mode was analysed. Mean values were compared using t-test.
resultsRV differed significantly between differently blasted Ti-bases (p < 0.001). Both crown materials achieved significantly higher mean pull-off forces (Z1: 1085 N ± 79; H1 = 664 N ± 68) in control groups than in groups with macroretention (Z2: 1017 N ± 65; H2 = 438 N ± 48) (Z: p = 0.024, H: p < 0.001), and significantly lower pull-off forces than in groups with rougher Ti-bases (Z3: 1298 N ± 98, H3: 744 N ± 64) (Z: p < 0.001, H: p = 0.0023).
conclusionsIncreasing pressure and grit size during corundum blasting of Ti-bases can achieve higher pull-off force for zirconia and PICN crowns. Additional macroretention, at least in the form used here, offers no advantage regarding bond strength.
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.