ArticlePolymers2022
Comparative Assessment of Different Pre-Treatment Bonding Strategies to Improve the Adhesion of Self-Adhesive Composites to 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 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of mussel-inspired primers on resin-dentin bonding interface stability: A systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of oral sciences · 2025Pooled it
- Pre-cure contact time and dentin surface roughness in modulating bonding and impregnation of self-adhesive composites to dentin.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of different dentin etching protocols on the immediate microtensile bond strength of two bulk-fill restorative systems in class I cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimal nano-silica filler concentration to optimize kinetics, rheology and bonding of self-adhesive composites.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Bonding Performance and Interfacial Ultra-Morphology/Nanoleakage of a Modern Self-Curing Bulk-Fill Restorative System: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Self-Adhesive Flowable Resin Composites-Are We Going Somewhere?Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Functional Monomer Type Determines the Interfacial Properties of Experimental Self-Adhesive Composites Bonded to Dentin.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the adhesive interface formed in dentin, using self-adhesive composites applied with different bonding strategies, by testing the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and ultramorphology through the use of light microscopy. Permanent, sound human molars were randomly allocated to six experimental groups. The groups included a negative control group, where only etching was performed via EtchOnly; a positive control group where an adhesive was applied, OptiBondFL (OBFL); and an experimental group where a primer was applied using a co-curing strategy together with a composite (Primer_CoCuring). The samples were sectioned into microspecimens for μTBS (n = 8) and into 1-mm thick slabs for light microscopy using Masson’s trichrome staining protocol (n = 3). The statistical analysis included a two-way ANOVA for μTBS data and Tukey’s HSD was used as a post-hoc test (significance level of 5%; SPSS v. 26.0). The results of the μTBS revealed that the self-adhesive composite (F = 6.0, p < 0.018) and the bonding strategy (F = 444.1, p < 0.001) significantly affected the bond strength to dentin. However, their interactions were not significant (F = 1.2, p = 0.29). Etching dentin with no additional treatment revealed the lowest μTBS (VF_EtchOnly = 2.4 ± 0.8 MPa; CC_EtchOnly = 2.0 ± 0.4 MPa), which was significantly different from using a primer (VF_CoCu = 8.8 ± 0.8 MPa; CC_CoCu = 6.3 ± 1.0 MPa) or using the full adhesive (VF_OptiBondFL = 22.4 ± 0.3 MPa; CC_OptibondFL = 21.2 ± 0.4 MPa). Microscopy images revealed that the experimental Primer_CoCuring was the only group with no collagen fibers exposed to the dentin−composite interface. Overall, the use of a primer, within the limitations of this study, increased the bonding of the self-adhesive composite and provided sufficient infiltration of the collagen based on light-microscopic imaging.
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.