ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2026
Effect of Different Surface Treatment Protocols on Shear Bond Strength of Bulk-fill Resin Composite: an SEM Evaluation.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the repair bond strength of aged bulk-fill resin composites using various surface treatment protocols and analyze the composite-composite interface via scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND
methodsOne-hundred fifty disk-shaped specimens (4 mm height × 5 mm diameter) were prepared from three bulk-fill composites. After thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5°C-55°C), specimens were assigned to five groups: (1) control (no treatment); (2) Universal adhesive (UA); (3) 37% phosphoric acid + UA; (4) silane + UA; and (5) CoJet + Silane + UA. Filtek Bulk-Fill Flowable was applied as the repair composite. After 24-h storage, shear bond strength (SBS) was measured, and one specimen per group was examined under SEM.
resultsTwo-way ANOVA showed statistically significant effects of both surface treatment and composite type on SBS (p 0.05). CoJet + silane + UA produced the highest SBS values for all composites, whereas the untreated control produced the lowest values. No statistically significant difference was observed between UA and phosphoric acid + UA (p > 0.05), while silane + UA resulted in statistically significantly higher SBS values than both protocols. Material-dependent differences were observed in some treatment groups; however, no statistically significant differences among the three composites were detected following phosphoric acid + UA or CoJet + silane + UA treatment.
conclusionSurface treatment statistically significantly improved the repair bond strength of aged bulk-fill composites. The combination of CoJet, silane, and universal adhesive provided the most effective bond enhancement.
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.