ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Bond strength to dentin after chemomechanical caries removal.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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.
- A Defined-Area Bonding Approach for Microtensile Testing: A Reliable Alternative to Monoblock Sectioning for High-Hardness Restorative Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate bond strength of self-etching adhesive to dentin following chemomechanical dentin or burs carious removal. Material and Methods: Twenty-two sound molars were sectioned transversely to achieve complete exposure of dentin, followed by the induction of artificial caries. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups: Brix-carious dentin removal with papain-based gel (Brix 3000), and Burs-carious dentin removal with drills. A morphological analysis of prepared dentin was performed on two samples from each experimental group using scanning electron microscopy. Teeth were restored using a self-etch adhesive system (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray) and composite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M Oral Care). For the microtensile bond strength μTBS test, beams were tested under tensile stress after 24 hours of storage in distilled water. Fractographic failure mode was performed using a stereomicroscope and two beams from each group were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The data were analyzed using an independent samples t-test with a significance level of α=0.05. Results: The μTBS ranged from 23.84 ± 5.77 MPa for the Brix group to 28.91 ± 4.82 MPa for the burs group. There was no statistical difference between the groups ( Conclusions: The chemomechanical carious dentin removal using papain gel formulation Brix3000® did not affect bond strength compared to bur removal method.
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.