ArticleCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive and Glass Ionomer Cement to Dentin After Removal of Hemostatic Agents Using Different Cleansing Protocols: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Hemostatic agents (HA), such as aluminium chloride (AlCl3) and ferric sulfate (FeSO4), can affect the dentin by obstructing adhesive penetration, and reducing the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cements (SARC) and glass ionomer cements (GIC). Aim To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of bonding and luting agents (SARC and GIC) to dentin after the removal of AlCl3 and FeSO4, using different cleansing protocols (dentin conditioner (DC) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)), and to determine whether the same cleansing protocol can be applied for both bonding and luting procedures. Methodology Sixty molar teeth were sectioned and categorized into two HA groups and three cleansing-protocol subgroups. Within each subgroup, specimens were bonded with SARC and GIC. SBS was evaluated, and data were statistically analyzed using independent t-tests, one-way and three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the level of significance established at p < 0.05 Results For SARC, EDTA yielded the highest SBS after both FeSO4 and AlCl3 contamination, followed by DC and control (p < 0.001). For GIC, DC produced the greatest SBS after AlCl3 contamination (p = 0.042), whereas EDTA was most effective after FeSO4 contamination (p = 0.017). Control groups consistently showed the lowest SBS values. Conclusion EDTA is the preferred cleanser for SARC after use of both contaminants, and for GIC following FeSO4 contamination, while DC was preferred for GIC after AlCl3.
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.