ArticleOdontology2026
Can fiber reinforcement enhance the load-bearing capacity of self-adhesive restorative materials? 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated whether fiber reinforcement improves the load-bearing capacity and fracture behavior of two experimental self-adhesive restorative materials compared with conventional materials. The experimental materials were prepared by adding 20 wt% of glass fibers to the powder of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and a glass-hybrid (GH). Large MOD cavities in 70 extracted permanent molars were prepared and restored with seven restorative material groups (n = 10): conventional GIC, RMGIC, GH, experimental-RMGIC, experimental-GH, resin-based composites (RBC) and short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC). The specimens underwent static-loading to failure after 100,000 cycles of fatigue aging. The microstructure and fracture surfaces were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). One-way ANOVA was used. The incorporation of glass microfibers increased the load-bearing capacity of RMGIC from 1756 ± 394 N to 2514 ± 543 N (p < 0.05). The difference between the load-bearing capacity of experimental-GH and unmodified GH was not significant (p > 0.05). The total energy absorption prior to fracture was higher in both experimental materials compared to their unmodified equivalents. SFRC-group (3350.0 ± 569 N) demonstrated the highest load-bearing capacity among all groups. Fiber-reinforced restorations exhibited a greater proportion of favorable fracture types. SEM analysis revealed that the fibers were uniformly embedded within the cement matrix and exhibited good interfacial integration across all experimental groups. Incorporating glass microfibers significantly improved the load-bearing capacity of the RMGIC-based material and enhanced toughness in both RMGIC and GH. Fiber reinforcement also promoted more favorable fracture patterns, suggesting its potential to improve the mechanical performance of self-adhesive restorative materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42704588What 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.