ArticleClinical oral investigations2018
Biological response to self-etch adhesive after partial caries removal in rats.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calcium silicate liner versus no liner in selective caries removal: a one-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Animal models of oral infectious diseases.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Zn-containing Adhesives Facilitate Collagen Protection and Remineralization at the Resin-Dentin Interface: A Narrative Review.Polymers · 2022Review
- Detection of Inflammatory and Homeostasis Biomarkers after Selective Removal of Carious Dentin-An In Vivo Feasibility Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purposes of this study were to evaluate a model of slow caries progression and to investigate the performance of a self-etch adhesive system for partial caries removal. MATERIALS AND
methodsRat molars were infected with Streptococcus sobrinus 6715 culture. Different time points were analyzed: days 78, 85, and 95 (± 2). After this, the samples were processed for morphological analysis. Additionally, the first molars were restored with zinc oxide and eugenol (IRM™; Dentsply; Brazil) or adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond™; Kuraray Medical; Japan) 78 days after caries induction. After, 3 or 15 days post-treatment, the animals were euthanized, and their mandibles were processed for morphological analysis, classified by means of scores, and submitted to statistical analysis. Subsequently, immunohistochemical analysis was performed for osteonectin (OSN) and transforming growth factor-ß1 (TGF-ß1) expression.
resultsAccording to the caries induction model used, on day 95 greater inflammatory infiltration (p < 0.001), and more extensive degradation of secondary/primary dentin were demonstrated than on day 78 (p < 0.05). Furthermore, the restorative materials presented similar performance (p > 0.05) and proved to be fundamental to control the carious lesion. The TGF-ß1 and OSN were shown to be active during the caries process.
conclusionsThe slow caries lesion model was feasible for morphological analysis of the dentin-pulp complex. The self-etch adhesive system triggered no acute inflammatory infiltration or pulp necrosis, instead it seemed to stimulate early pulp repair. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Clearfil SE Bond™ applied directly on caries-affected dentin did not predispose to pulp inflammation; instead, it appeared to provide early biological benefits.
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.