ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2025
Impact of Casein Phosphopeptide Amorphous Calcium Phosphate and Proanthocyanidin on Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Caries-Affected Dentin in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in Bioactive Dental Adhesives for Caries Prevention: A State-of-the-Art Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to assess the impact of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) and proanthocyanidin (PA) on the microshear bond strength (μSBS) of universal adhesives to caries-affected dentin (CAD) in primary teeth. MATERIALS AND
methods160 human primary second molars with occlusal caries were utilized, with CAD-exposed dentin surfaces. The teeth were categorized into four groups based on CAD pretreatment: no pretreatment, CPP-ACP for 3 min, PA for 1 min, and PA for 1 min followed by CPP-ACP for 3 min. Each group subdivided into four based on adhesive system (Gluma Bond Universal or All-Bond Universal) and application mode (etch and rinse; E&R or self-etch; SE). Following composite resin restoration, μSBS measurements were taken after 24 h of water storage.
resultsPA pretreatment showed the highest μSBS compared to controls and other methods (p < 0.001). Conversely, CAD pretreatment with CPP-ACP + PA led to lower μSBS than the control (p = 0.009). Universal adhesive choice significantly influenced μSBS (p < 0.001), with Gluma Bond Universal outperforming All-Bond Universal (p < 0.001). The E&R method demonstrated superior bond strength over SE (p < 0.001).
conclusionCAD pretreatment, particularly with PA, significantly impacted bond strength, with Gluma Bond Universal and the E&R method proving optimal for enhancing μSBS to CAD. These findings offer valuable insights for refining adhesive protocols in pediatric dentistry, potentially improving clinical outcomes in restorative procedures.
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.