ArticleScientific reports2025
Evaluation of bond durability of different self-adhesive bioactive restorative systems to dentin.
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 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early Clinical Performance of Two Powder-Liquid Restoratives in Class-I/II Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Adhesive Performance of Ion-Releasing Materials on Dentin with Altered Mineralization.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of polymerization mode and LED light-curing units on the shear bond strength of an alkasite restorative material to dentin.Odontology · 2026Article
- Influence of cement composition and scaler selection on dental cement removal and surface damage.Odontology · 2026Article
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Effect of incorporation of tricalcium silicate to a universal adhesive on microtensile bond strength to dentin and micromorphological patterns of tooth/restoration interface.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Can lasers replace conventional methods in optimizing bond strength of bioactive materials?Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of a Mesoporous Bioactive Glass-Containing Universal Adhesive: An In Vitro Study on the Effects of Artificial Aging.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- The Influence of Drying Time, Application Mode, and Agitation on the Dentin Bond Strength of a Novel Mesoporous Bioactive Glass-Containing Universal Dentin Adhesive.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the bonding efficacy three bioactive self-adhesive restorative systems to dentin. A total of 80 permanent human molars were utilized in this study. The occlusal enamel was removed to exposed mid-coronal dentin; 40 molars were used for microshear bond strength testing, while the remaining molars were used for micromorphological analysis of restoration/dentin interface. Accordingly, 4 groups were assigned according to the used restorative materials; (G1) self-adhesive hybrid composite (surefil one), (G2) Alkasite-based material (Cention forte) without pretreatment primer, (G3) Alkasite-based material (Cention forte) with pretreatment primer (Cention primer), and (G4) resin-modified glass ionomer (fuji II LC). Then each group was divided into 2 sub-group according to testing time (n = 5); immediate (after 24 h) and delayed (after 6 months of storage in artificial saliva). Microshear bond strength testing employed a universal testing machine to quantify the force required for material fracture at the interface, followed by failure mode analysis. Interfacial micromorphology was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). In µSBS, the outcome of Two-way ANOVA showed that, there is a statistically significant difference in "type of the restorative material" and "storage time" (p˂0.05. The output of Tukey post-hoc test revealed highest µSBS values were recorded in both immediate and delayed was recorded for Cention Forte with it's pretreatment primer (p < 0.05). Whereas Surefil one & Cention Forte (without primer) showed the lowest µSBS results among its immediate and delayed groups (p < 0.05). Regarding the micromorphological patterns of restoration/dentin interface using SEM, there was a difference among the tested groups. This study revealed that using of primers prior to application of alkasite-based restorative material is highly recommended as this techniques seems to be the most effective in obtaining superior bond strength with dentin. Accordingly, this outcome of this study highlighting the importance of using primer in enhancing bonding to dentin, which might slightly countered the initial manufacturer's recommendations and categorization of this type of restorations as a self-adhesive.
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.