ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Evaluating the advancements in a recently introduced universal adhesive compared to its predecessor.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective, randomized, paired-comparison clinical trial of a new universal adhesive in posterior composite restorations: A 2-year evaluation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- 24-Month clinical evaluation of cervical restorations bonded using radio-opaque universal adhesive compared to conventional universal adhesive in carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Prospective, randomized clinical trial evaluating the clinical performance of a new universal adhesive in Class I and Class II restorations at 1 year.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Core Buildup Composite Resins Bond Strength to Dentin and Microhardness Using Universal Adhesives.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Micro-CT Assessment of Radiopacity and Intra-Cavity Distribution of Universal Adhesives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Commercial trends in universal adhesive evolution: updated formulations do not consistently improve dentin bond strength after aging compared with predecessors and a multistep reference.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The Effects of Immediate Dentin Sealing on the Enzymatic Activity and Bond Strength of Hybrid Ceramic CAD/CAM Onlays: A Comparative Study of Two Universal Adhesives.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- The potential cytotoxic effect of recent universal adhesives with modified monomeric compositions on human gingival epithelial cells.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Effect of Oxygen-Inhibited Layer of Dental Adhesives on Bond Strength: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Effect of short dentin etching and water storage on bonding of resin composite to dentin with universal and two-step self-etch adhesive systems.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Fracture resistance of milled and 3D printed ultra-thin occlusal veneers made of CAD/CAM resin-based ceramics cemented by variable luting approaches.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Impact of a Novel Pretreatment on Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive to Conventional and CAD/CAM Resin Composites: In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- The effect of different surface treatments and adhesive systems on shear bond strength in universal nanohybrid composite resin repair.BMC oral health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: The dental adhesive market is constantly evolving to meet the demands of dentists and patients, but new products and upgrades should be rigorously evaluated before being used in clinical practice. This study investigated the physicomechanical properties and dentin bonding efficacy of a newly upgraded universal adhesive compared to its predecessor. Materials and methods: Twenty-four molars were divided into four groups (n = 6/group) based on adhesive (new vs. predecessor) and application mode [self-etch (SE) vs. etch-and-rinse (ER)] for evaluating their dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS), failure pattern, and bonding interface. Additional thirty-six molars' crowns were perpendicularly sectioned to obtain flat mid-coronal dentin discs. The opposing dentin surfaces of each disc received contrasting treatments (new/predecessor adhesive applied in SE/ER mode), resulting in six interventions. The bonded discs (n = 6/intervention) were used to assess the adhesives' survival probability employing a double-sided μTBS test. The other physicomechanical properties examined were adhesives' oxygen inhibition layer (OIL), viscosity, hardness, elastic modulus, degree of conversion (DC), and in-situ DC. Results: Both adhesive versions showed similar μTBS ( Conclusion: While the newly updated adhesive had superior physicomechanical properties with more fluidity, its dentin bonding efficacy and survival probability were comparable to its predecessor.
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.