ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of the double-application of one-step universal adhesives on bonding strength to bur-cut enamel.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne-step universal adhesives form a thinner adhesive layer, which is more susceptible to oxygen-induced polymerization inhibition, thereby weakening the bond strength. Some studies have suggested strengthening the adhesive layer by applying multiple layers of adhesive. Thus, this study aimed to examine the effect of double application on the bond strength of universal adhesives to bur-cut enamel.
methodsThe enamel surfaces were prepared using a medium-grit diamond bur. The specimens were randomly distributed into eighteen groups based on three factors: the adhesive used (Optibond Universal, G-Premio Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond Universal), the application method of adhesives (single application and double-application with or without light activation between layers), and the type of composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Flow and Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). The adhesive agents were applied in self-etch mode, and composite blocks were fabricated. After 24 h, the composite blocks were subjected to a shear bond strength test, and the fractured surfaces were examined using a stereomicroscope. Additionally, the thickness of the adhesive layers was assessed using scanning electron microscopy. The data were evaluated by a three-way ANOVA, Weibull analysis, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
resultsThe double-application of the adhesives did not improve the bonding potential to enamel (p > 0.05). The use of flowable composite resin did not enhance the bond strength. The adhesives demonstrated similar reliability. Optibond Universal exhibited higher bond strength to bur-cut enamel compared to G-Premio Bond and Clearfil S3 Bond Universal, regardless of application method and composite type (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe double-application of the adhesives and composite type did not affect the bonding strength to bur-cut enamel, regardless of whether light activation was applied between the applications.
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.