ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2024
Long-Term Dentin Bonding Performance of Universal Adhesives: The Effect of HEMA Content and Bioactive Resin Composite.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. 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.
- Evaluation of microtensile bond strength and failure type analysis of two different types of universal dental adhesives. In vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Does simplification signify compromise? Evaluation of different universal adhesives on shear bond strength:Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Microtensile Bond Strengths of Giomers Using HEMA-Based and HEMA-Free Silane Adhesive With Laser-Cut and Bur-Cut Dentin.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the effects of resin composites (RCs) containing surface pre-reacted glass ionomer (S-PRG) filler on the dentin microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of HEMA-free and HEMA-containing universal adhesives (UAs). Water sorption (WS) and solubility (SL), degree of conversion (DC), and ion release were measured. The UAs BeautiBond Xtreme (BBX; 0% HEMA), Modified Adhesive-1 (E-BBX1; 5% HEMA), Modified Adhesive-2 (E-BBX2; 10% HEMA), and two 2-step self-etch adhesives (2-SEAs): FL-BOND II (FBII; with S-PRG filler) and silica-containing adhesive (E-FBII) were used. Teeth were restored with Beautifil Flow Plus F00 with S-PRG filler (BFP) and flowable resin composite with silica filler (E-BFP). μTBS was evaluated after 24 h and 6 months of water storage. WS and SL measurement followed ISO 4049:2019; spectroscopy measured DC; ICP-MS evaluated ion release. BBX and FBII presented the highest DC. The adhesives did not comply with the WS ISO requirements, but the bonding resin of 2-SEAs complied with the SL threshold. BFP released more ions than E-BFP. BFP positively affected the μTBS of UAs, regardless of HEMA concentration after 24 h, comparable to the 2-SEAs. The 6 months μTBS decrease depended on the adhesive and RC combination. HEMA did not affect the μTBS of UAs, while bioactive resins had a positive impact.
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.