SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2025
Bond strength of flowable dental composites in the cementation of indirect restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based 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.
- Impact of M-POSS on Selected Properties of Experimental Methacrylate Matrices and Composites.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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review evaluated experimental evidence on how incorporating flowable dental composites affects the bond strength of dental cementation. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis systematic review, following PRISMA guidelines, assessed in vitro studies (2003-2025) on the effect of flowable composites on cementation bond strength using a comprehensive database search, QUIN Tool for bias assessment, Begg's and Egger's tests for publication bias, and random-effects meta-analysis with SMD and I² statistics.
resultsThis systematic review included eight in vitro studies published between 2003 and 2025. The meta-analysis found no statistically significant differences among the various bond strength test methods. Although the shear bond strength (SBS) test demonstrated a significant effect, the high heterogeneity among studies limits the reliability of this result. Etchable ceramics showed favourable effect sizes, but again, the high heterogeneity reduces the certainty of this finding. No significant difference was observed between self-etch and self-adhesive resin cements; however, self-etch resin cements tended to perform better in terms of bond strength. Nevertheless, the substantial heterogeneity in both adhesive groups indicates notable variability across studies. For the dual-cured group, a statistically significant standardized mean difference was observed, suggesting a positive effect of the dual-cured luting cement compared to the light-cured luting cement.
conclusionFlowable dental composites generally perform comparably to conventional resin cements, with dual-cured and self-etch resin cements showing a tendency toward improved bond strength. However, variability across studies limits the certainty of these results. Further standardized in vitro studies are needed to confirm these findings and guide clinical application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41203974What 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.