ArticleScientific reports2025
A comparative study of polydopamine vs. glass ionomer cement for adhesion mechanisms on enamel and dentin using SEM and shear bond strength evaluation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polydopamine-Based Biomaterials in Oral Medicine: Applications, Mechanisms, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Mussel-inspired remineralizing agent: effects on morphology and permeability of dentin after erosion and abrasion cycling protocol.Clinical oral investigations · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Polydopamine (PD), inspired by the wet adhesion mechanism of mussel foot proteins, has emerged as a promising adhesive material with wide-ranging applications. This study aimed to compare the adhesive properties of PD and Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) on enamel and dentin substrates, evaluating PD's potential as an alternative adhesive in dental practice. A total of 120 human premolars were prepared, with 80 teeth allocated for Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) analysis and 40 teeth reserved for shear bond strength testing. The 80 teeth for SEM were divided into four groups (n = 20 per group) based on the adhesive used (PD or GIC) and the substrate (enamel or dentin). The bond interfaces were analysed under SEM following adhesive self-polymerization. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05) revealed that GIC and PD showed more microcracks when bonded to dentin compared to enamel, with the PD-enamel group showing the fewest microcracks. For shear bond strength testing, the 40 remaining teeth were divided into four groups (n = 10 per group) according to the same adhesive-substrate combinations. The results analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.001), indicated that PD bonded to enamel exhibited the highest bond strength, followed by PD-dentin, GIC-enamel, and GIC-dentin. These findings were consistent with the SEM analysis, demonstrating that PD provides superior bonding to enamel and outperforms GIC in both bond strength and interface quality. This study suggests that PD is a viable alternative to GIC, particularly for enamel bonding, and further research is recommended to assess its long-term clinical performance.
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.