ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Microshear Bond Strength and Microgap Formation of a New Self-Cure Bulk-Fill and a Light-Cure Composite Resin in Bonding to Dentin.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cuspal displacement, marginal adaptation, and nanoleakage in maxillary premolars restored with a novel auto-cured bulk-fill composite versus a light-cured bulk-fill composite: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Bond strength performance of a self-curing bulk-fill restorative system and light-cured restorative systems after aging: an in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- In vitro evaluation of a novel self-adhesive composite primer modified with nano zinc oxide and hydroxyapatite: antibacterial activity, marginal microleakage, and interfacial elemental analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Materials and Techniques in Dentistry, Oral Surgery and Orthodontics (Second Edition).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to compare the microshear bond strength (μSBS) and microgap formation of STELA self-cure composite and a light-cure composite when bonded to dentin. Material and Methods: A total of 45 bovine teeth were divided into three groups: (1) STELA composite with STELA primer (SS), (2) STELA composite with Clearfil SE Bond (S6), and (3) Luna light-cure composite with Clearfil SE Bond (L6). Each sample was bonded to dentin, subjected to artificial aging, and tested for μSBS using a universal testing machine with the wire loop technique. Failures were categorized as adhesive, cohesive, or mixed. Microgap formation at the dentin-composite interface was evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 1000× magnification. The average and maximum gap values were recorded. Data analysis was conducted using SPSS version 16, with statistical significance set at 0.05. Results: The L6 group exhibited significantly higher mean μSBS compared to both the S6 and SS groups ( Conclusion: This study showed the highest bond strength in the light-cure composite, followed by STELA with its primer and then with Clearfil SE Bond. The largest microgap occurred in self-cure STELA with Clearfil SE Bond. STELA should be used with its specific primer, as Clearfil SE Bond is not a suitable substitute.
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.