ArticlePolymers2022
Does the Application of Additional Hydrophobic Resin to Universal Adhesives Increase Bonding Longevity of Eroded Dentin?
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Which is the best adhesive system for primary tooth enamel? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of bond strength data.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Adhesive Cementation of CAD/CAM Silica-based Ceramics: Effect of Adhesive Type and Long-term Aging on the Bond Strength to Composite Cement.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024Article
- Synergistic enhancement of hydrophobic dental adhesives: autonomous strengthening, polymerization kinetics, and hydrolytic resistance.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper evaluates the effect of an additional hydrophobic resin coat (extra HL) associated with universal adhesives on sound and eroded dentin and evaluated immediately or after 2 years of water storage to improve the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and nanoleakage (NL) when compared to the use of universal adhesives only. Sixty-four molars were assigned to eight groups using the following combinations: 1. dentin substrate, including sound and eroded dentin; 2. treatment, including the control and extra HL and storage time (immediately and after two-years of storage). Two universal adhesives (Prime & Bond Active or Scotchbond Universal) were evaluated. Before restoration, half of the teeth were subjected to soft-drink erosion. Composite buildups were bonded; specimens were stored (37 °C/24 h), sectioned into resin−dentin bonded sticks and tested for microtensile bond strength and nanoleakage using SEM (immediately and after two-years of storage). Three-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05%) were used. In the immediate testing, the application of extra HL did not increase microtensile bond strength values compared with the control group in either substrate (p > 0.05). However, extra HL significantly decreased nanoleakage values when applied to eroded and sound dentin (p = 0.0001). After two years, the application of extra HL produced significantly higher microtensile bond strength and lower nanoleakage values than the control group for both adhesives (p = 0.0001). In all cases, sound dentin showed higher microtensile bond strength and lower nanoleakage values than eroded dentin (p = 0.000001). An extra HL increased the bond strength and reduced nanoleakage in eroded dentin after two-years of storage.
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.