ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Comparative Study on Interface Fracture of 4th Generation 3-Steps Adhesive and 7th Generation Universal Adhesive.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. 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.
- The Effect of Adhesive Systems on Shade Matching of Composite Veneer.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bonding and fractographic characterization of universal adhesives applied to dentin in multimode strategies: an in vitro study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Internal Adaptation of Composite Fillings Made Using Universal Adhesives-A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis.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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin-adhesive-restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine-adhesive-filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.
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.