ArticleBMC oral health2025
The impact of three desensitizing materials on the shear strength between composite resin and dentin: 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe study investigated the effect of three commercially available desensitizers on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two bulk fill composites and a conventional composite resin to dentin. METHODS AND
methodsThe study utilized 144 freshly extracted, caries free maxillary premolar teeth. The dentin surfaces of all the teeth were exposed and etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s, rinsed with water and dried. Three main groups were made consisting of 48 teeth in each group, Group 1, 2, and 3. Each main group (Groups 1, 2, and 3) had 4 subgroups consisting of 12 teeth each depending upon the desensitizer used (Subgroup A-No desensitizer or control, Subgroup B-Gluma Dentin desensitizer, Subgroup C-Shield force Plus desensitizer, and Subgroup D-Telio CS desensitizer). As per the manufacturer’s instructions, the different dentin desensitizers were applied in all the test subgroups. With the help of a silicon mold, Group 1 received Bulk fill packable composite resin, Group 2 received Bulk fill flowable composite resin, and Group 3 received Conventional / Incremental composite resin to complete the sample preparation and shear bond test was performed. The parametric two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test with interaction design was applied and Tukey’s multiple Posthoc procedures were carried out for pairwise comparisons. A 95% confidence range was used to determine statistical significance for p ≤ 0.05.
resultsHighest SBS was seen in Shield force Plus desensitizer groups (16.47 Megapascals (MPa)) and Telio desensitizer groups showed the least SBS values (14.07 MPa). Bulk fill packable composite groups showed highest SBS (15.90 MPa) while Bulk fill flowable composite groups had least SBS values (14.75 MPa).
conclusionsSince these three desensitizers can both strengthen the bond between composite resins and dentin, and reduce dentin hypersensitivity following composite restorations as per the earliar studies, clinicians should consider using them before placing composite restorations. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.