ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Bioengineering perspectives on adhesive delivery: performance analysis of dental microapplicators.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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.
- Dental microbrush tips: absence of acute cytotoxicity and NF-κB activation in human oral cells.Odontology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The precise and consistent application of adhesive systems is essential for achieving reliable bonding in restorative dentistry. Microapplicators are commonly used for adhesive delivery; however, variations in their structural quality and performance may affect clinical outcomes. Objective: This study evaluated four commercially available microapplicator brands-Angelus, FGM, KG Sorensen, and SDI-regarding the quality of their active tips (bristle configuration) and adhesive delivery capacity. Methods: A total of 160 microapplicators (40 per brand) were analyzed. Optical microscopy (15 per brand) assessed bristle integrity before and after use. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM; 10 per brand) evaluated surface morphology (five unused and five used applicators per brand). Adhesive release capacity (15 per brand) was determined by weighing each microapplicator before adhesive loading, after loading, and following application to a standardized cavity. Data was analyzed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: New microapplicators from Angelus, KG Sorensen, and SDI displayed uniform bristle arrangements without visible gaps. After use, SDI and Angelus maintained superior bristle cohesion, whereas FGM showed the greatest deformation and sparse bristle distribution. Despite morphological differences, all brands delivered adhesive with comparable efficiency, exceeding 96% release. Conclusions: SDI microapplicators demonstrated the highest structural stability and resistance to deformation, followed by Angelus, KG Sorensen, and FGM. Although adhesive release capacity was consistent across all brands, differences in bristle quality may influence handling characteristics and clinical precision.
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.