ArticleOdontology2026
Bond strength performance of a self-curing bulk-fill restorative system and light-cured restorative systems after aging: an in vitro study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and failure patterns of a self-curing bulk-fill restorative system (STELA, SDI) were investigated and compared with those of a light-cured bulk-fill and a conventional light-cured restorative system following short- and long-term aging in artificial saliva. Forty-eight human teeth were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 16): G1, self-curing bulk-fill restorative system; G2, light-cured bulk-fill restorative system; and G3, conventional light-cured restorative system applied incrementally. Intact restored teeth were stored in artificial saliva for either 24 h or 18 months (n = 8 per condition) and were sectioned only after completion of the respective aging period to obtain five beam-shaped specimens (≈ 0.9 mm²). The tooth was considered the experimental unit. Specimens were stored for either 24 h or 18 months (n = 8 per condition). µTBS was assessed at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscopy, with representative samples analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. Data were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05). Bond strength was significantly influenced by both restorative system and aging time (p < 0.001). A significant interaction between restorative system and aging condition was also detected (p < 0.001). G2 exhibited the lowest µTBS values and a higher prevalence of adhesive failures. In contrast, G1 showed bond strength comparable to G3 and significantly higher than G2. Cohesive failures predominated in G1 and G3, whereas adhesive failures were more frequent in G2. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the self-curing bulk-fill restorative system demonstrated adhesive performance similar to the conventional restorative system and preserved its relative behavior after aging, under the respective adhesive strategies recommended by the manufacturers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42658460What 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.