ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparative evaluation of bonding performance between universal and self-etch adhesives:
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative assessment of the resin-dentin interface using three different universal adhesives: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- 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
- Article
- Calcium and Microhardness Quantification in Healthy and Fluorotic Dentin Conditioned with a Self-Etching System: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This work aimed to assess the bonding performance of universal adhesive and self-etch adhesives, and a comparative study was conducted using the same acid etching mode. Methods: The selective acid-etching mode was used to simulate bonded restorations to teeth defects of isolated human molars including enamel and dentin. Microtensile bond strength and microleakage of all adhesives were tested and compared after 24 h and 5000 thermocycles, respectively. The morphology of the adhesive interfaces was observed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and fluorescent staining. Results: The bond strength and microleakage of Single Bond Universal (SBU) adhesive are comparable to those of self-etch adhesives, although Clearfil Tri-S Bond (S3) exhibited significantly lower bond strength compared to other two self-etch groups evaluated. No significant differences were found in the microleakage resistance of these four adhesives, suggesting their similar effectiveness in sealing the margins of the restorations, although SBU showed the highest resistance of microleakage. The SEM and fluorescent staining results of the resin-dentin interfaces further revealed the formation of abundant resin tags for all adhesives. Conclusions: Self-etch adhesives evaluated in this study performed similarly to universal adhesives in selective acid-etch mode for bond strength and microleakage resistance. Both types of adhesives exhibited effective penetration capabilities into the dentinal tubules. Clinical significance: During the adhesion processes involving both dentin and enamel, self-etch adhesives can serve as alternatives to universal adhesives in selective acid-etch mode.
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.