{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022022022022022022, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001001001001001001, 'mean_word_length': 5.4935064935064934, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
An evaluation of strength of composite resin restorations using different bonding agents--an in-vitro study.

In the recent years, the scope of conservative dentistry with emphasis on esthetics has increased by leaps and bounds in enhancing individual personality. Composite resins are important for aesthetic restorations in dentistry, specifically in operative dentistry. But without bonding agents the success of composite restorations is minimized. Researchers are constantly endeavoring to improve the quality of bonding agents. The advent of new bonding systems which are capable of bonding both enamel & dentin has opened new avenues in the field of restorative dentistry. With the market floating with new bonding agents claiming superior bonding properties, this study was undertaken to investigate the degree of bond strength produced by three commercially available bonding agents (Syntac, Scotchbond 1, & Clearfil SE) with composite resin (Esthet-X) taken for the experimental procedure.