ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2022
Bonding Efficacy of Universal Adhesives to Fluorotic Enamel after Pre-conditioning with EDTA.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2022. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of sodium hypochlorite concentration and treatment time on enamel surface morphology and shear bond strength for orthodontic attachments: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Pretreatment of fluorotic human enamel surface by chemical and pneumatic microabrasion exerts effects on shear bond strength: an in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA pretreatment on the resin infiltration efficacy and acid resistance of enamel white spot lesions: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Dentin Bonding Durability of Four Different Recently Introduced Self-Etch Adhesives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effect of active pre-conditioning with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) vs 37% phosphoric acid (PA) on the resin-enamel microshear bond strength (µSBS), enamel-etching pattern, and in situ degree of conversion (in situ DC) of four universal adhesives on sound and fluorotic enamel. MATERIAL AND
methodsIn this study, 448 extracted human molars (224 without fluorosis and 224 with fluorosis) were sectioned into four parts and divided into 16 experimental groups based on the enamel surface (sound or fluorotic enamel), adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB], Futurabond U [FBU], iBond Universal [IBU], or Scotchbond Universal [SBU]), and enamel conditioning agent (PA or EDTA). The specimens were stored for 24 h and tested under shear stress at 1.0 mm/min to determine the µSBS. The adhesive-enamel interfaces were evaluated for in situ DC using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope. The µSBS and in situ DC data were analyzed separately using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (a = 0.05).
resultsSound enamel showed higher µSBS and in situ DC compared to fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed for µSBS, in situ DC (p > 0.05), or etching patterns when PA and EDTA etching were compared in sound and fluorotic enamel. Moreover, CUB and SBU showed higher mean µSBS than did FBU and IBU in both sound and fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05).
conclusionsCompared to PA, active pre-conditioning with EDTA showed similar µSBS and enamel etching patterns for all the adhesives in fluorotic enamel, without compromising the in situ DC.
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.