Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37385864›Full record

ArticleInternational dental journal2023

Marginal Integrity of Simplified Adhesive Strategies in Primary Teeth.

Mia de Boer, Marcus Zimmermann, Thomas Attin, Tobias T Tauböck, Blend Hamza

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. [Post-aging comparative study of snowplow and conventional techniques for the resin restoration of defective primary teeth].Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mia de BoerClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Marcus ZimmermannClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Thomas AttinClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Tobias T TauböckClinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Blend HamzaClinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. Electronic address: blend.hamza@zzm.uzh.ch.
University of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this research was to investigate the effect of simplified adhesive strategies (self-etch vs selective enamel etch and 10- vs 20-second adhesive application time) on the marginal integrity in primary molars.

methodsForty deep class-II cavities were prepared in 40 extracted primary molars. The molars were divided into 4 groups based on the applied universal adhesive strategy as follows: groups 1 and 2: selective enamel etch with 20- or 10-second application time and groups 3 and 4: self-etch with 20- or 10-second application time. All cavities were restored with a sculptable bulk-fill composite restoration. The restorations underwent a thermomechanical loading (TML, 5-50 °C, 2-minute dwelling time, ×1000; 400,000 loading cycles, 1.7 Hz, 49 N). Marginal analysis before and after TML was conducted with scanning electron microscopy and the marginal integrity of each restoration was calculated as a percentage of continuous margins. A beta regression model was adopted to statistically analyse the data with a consequent pairwise comparison.

resultsThe mean marginal integrity (% ± SD) of the restorations for each tested adhesive strategy after TML was as follows: selective enamel etch/20 seconds = 85.4 ± 3.9, self-etch/20 seconds = 85.3 ± 5.2, self-etch/10 seconds = 80.1 ± 8.2, and selective enamel etch/10 seconds = 80.0 ± 8.5. The difference between both adhesive strategies was not statistically significant at the same application time. The difference between both application times within the same adhesive strategy was statistically significant (P ≤ .01).

conclusionsUniversal adhesives applied either in selective enamel etch or in self-etch mode result in comparable marginal integrities when restoring class-II cavities in primary molars. Shortened adhesive application time (10 seconds) could lead to a reduction in the marginal integrity in comparison to the recommended application time of 20 seconds.

Indexed as

Dental BondingDental CariesComposite ResinsDental CementsDental Marginal AdaptationDental Restoration, PermanentDentin-Bonding AgentsHumansMaterials TestingResin CementsTooth, DeciduousComposite ResinsDental CementsDentin-Bonding AgentsResin CementsPrimary teethSelective enamel etchSelf-etchShortened application timeUniversal adhesives

Identifiers

PMID37385864
PMCPMC10658436
OpenAlexW4382582221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.