ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Role of configuration factor on bond strength of universal adhesives in occlusal cavities: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: During curing of composite resins, polymerization shrinkage occurs and generates stress. The configuration factor (C-factors) is an important clinical parameter and is related to polymerization shrinkage, bond strength, and durability. High C-factors indicate situations in which the material polymerizes under greater external constraint. Aim: To evaluate the effect of C-factor on the bond strength of universal dental adhesives to the dentin of the cavity floor and cavity wall in class-I composite restorations using nanohybrid composites. Materials and Methods: Sixty noncarious human molars were randomly divided into four groups ( Results: Prime and Bond Universal had significantly better μTBS (mean = 8.53) as compared to Adper Single Bond 2 at the floor (mean = 6.64) of the cavity. At the wall of the cavity, Prime and Bond Universal was better, but the difference was not statistically significant ( Conclusion: To overcome high C-factor in Class I cavities, Prime and Bond universal had better bond strength when measured at the floor and wall of the cavity.
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.