ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2020
Dental adhesive microtensile bond strength following a biofilm-based in vitro aging model.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bond Strengths of Universal Adhesives to Dentin Contaminated with a Hemostatic Agent.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2022Trial
- Evaluation of an orthodontic adhesive containing 2 wt% nano-hydroxyapatite synthesized from a biogenic calcium precursor: antibacterial activity, calcium ion concentration, and enamel demineralization.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Improvement of dentin bonding via adhesive monomers with multiple hydrogen bonding moieties.Acta biomaterialia · 2025Article
- Comparison of Adhesion Performance of a Self-curing and a Light-curing Universal Adhesive to Various Dental Substrates and CAD/CAM Materials.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024Article
- Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Resin-Based Materials Applied in Dental Restorations.Polymers · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveLaboratory tests are routinely used to test bonding properties of dental adhesives. Various aging methods that simulate the oral environment are used to complement these tests for assessment of adhesive bond durability. However, most of these methods challenge hydrolytic and mechanical stability of the adhesive- enamel/dentin interface, and not the biostability of dental adhesives. To compare resin-dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) after a 15-day Streptococcus mutans (SM) or Streptococcus sobrinus (SS) bacterial exposure to the 6-month water storage (WS) ISO 11405 type 3 test. METHODOLOGY: A total of 31 molars were flattened and their exposed dentin was restored with Optibond-FL adhesive system and Z-100 dental composite. Each restored molar was sectioned and trimmed into four dumbbell-shaped specimens, and randomly distributed based on the following aging conditions: A) 6 months of WS (n=31), B) 5.5 months of WS + 15 days of a SM-biofilm challenge (n=31), C) 15 days of a SM-biofilm challenge (n=31) and D) 15 days of a SS-biofilm challenge (n=31). μTBS were determined and the failure modes were classified using light microscopy.
resultsStatistical analyses showed that each type of aging condition affected μTBS (p<0.0001). For Group A (49.7±15.5MPa), the mean μTBS was significantly greater than in Groups B (19.3±6.3MPa), C (19.9±5.9MPa) and D (23.6±7.9MPa). For Group D, the mean μTBS was also significantly greater than for Groups B and C, but no difference was observed between Groups B and C.
conclusionA Streptococcus mutans- or Streptococcus sobrinus-based biofilm challenge for 15 days resulted in a significantly lower μTBS than did the ISO 11405 recommended 6 months of water storage. This type of biofilm-based aging model seems to be a practical method for testing biostability of resin-dentin bonding.
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.