ArticleFrontiers in dentistry
Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composite, Conventional Flowable Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Primary Dentin.
Article in Frontiers in dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Impact of Cement Type on the Fracture Resistance of CAD-CAM Resin-Matrix Ceramic Anterior Crowns.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative effects of two luting cements and different cement volumes on the post-cementation occlusal elevation and fit of zirconia crowns.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Time-Dependent Adhesion and Fluoride Release of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements on Demineralized Enamel, Sound Enamel and Dentine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Types of Adhesive Materials Used in the Restoration of Permanent Molars after Treatment with Silver Diamine Fluoride: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Cytotoxic Evaluation of the New Composite Resin through an Artificial Pulp Chamber.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composites and Glass Ionomer Cements to Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Rheological Properties, Surface Microhardness, and Dentin Shear Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements Containing Methacrylate-Functionalized Polyacids and Spherical Pre-Reacted Glass Fillers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Article
- Microshear Bond Strength of a Self-adhesive Composite to Erbium Laser-Treated Primary Enamel.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of self-adhesive and conventional flowable composites and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) to primary dentin. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro, experimental study, the buccal surface of 48 primary canine and first molar teeth was longitudinally sectioned to expose dentin. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=16) of 37.5% phosphoric acid+ OptiBond+ Premise Flow composite (group 1), Vertise Flow composite (group 2) and RMGIC (group 3). A plastic cylindrical mold was placed on the exposed dentin and filled with restorative materials. The samples were then immersed in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, subjected to 1000 thermal cycles between 5-55°C and underwent SBS test. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test.
resultsA significant difference was noted in SBS of the groups (P<0.05). The SBS of conventional flowable composite was significantly higher that of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite (P<0.05). The difference in SBS of RMGIC and self-adhesive flowable composite was not significant (P>0.05). Failure at the dentin-restoration interface (adhesive failure) had the highest frequency in groups 1 and 2. The frequency of adhesive failure was 100% in group 3.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the conventional flowable composite yielded the highest SBS to primary dentin. Self-adhesive flowable composite and RMGIC showed the lowest SBS with no significant difference with each other.
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.