ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of anodization on metal-ceramic bond strength of titanium manufactured by selective laser melting: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTitanium is used in metal-ceramic restorations due to its biocompatibility and cost-effectiveness, yet concerns persist regarding veneering ceramic debonding. This is largely attributed to titanium’s high elasticity and the formation of a thick, poorly adherent oxide layer. Anodization and additive manufacturing (SLM) have been proposed to improve titanium’s surface characteristics and bonding performance. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of anodization on the metal-ceramic bond strength of 3D-printed titanium compared to non-anodized titanium and cobalt–chromium (CoCr) alloy.
methodsThirty metal plates (10 CoCr, 10 non-anodized titanium, 10 anodized titanium) were fabricated using selective laser melting (SLM). SEM-EDS analysis was performed on the metal plates to evaluate surface composition and morphology. Veneering process and the subsequent mechanical testing followed ISO 9693-1:2019 standards. Bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and data were statistically analyzed via one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsThe anodized group showed higher bond strength (59.26 ± 4.19 MPa; 95% CI: 56.9–61.6) compared with non-anodized titanium (54.37 ± 4.13 MPa; 95% CI: 52.6–56.1; p = 0.034, mean difference 4.89 MPa, Cohen’s d = 1.18). Cobalt–chromium outperformed both titanium groups (86.81 ± 3.72 MPa; 95% CI: 84.8–88.8; p < 0.001). Although the anodization effect reached statistical significance, the ≈ 5 MPa difference is unlikely to be clinically meaningful according to ISO 9693 and prior clinical benchmarks.
conclusionsAnodization enhances the bonding performance of 3D-printed titanium but does not match the strength of conventional CoCr frameworks. When titanium is selected for metal-ceramic systems, especially in high-load cases, a bulkier framework design is recommended to minimize the risk of framework flexibility and failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.