ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Effect of surface preparation methods on the shear bond strength of universal and self-etch adhesive systems: an in vitro study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To assess the impact of three smear layer preparation methods on shear bond strength (SBS) to enamel and dentin, using two universal adhesives (Tetric N-Bond Universal, 3M Single Bond Universal) and one two-step self-etch adhesive (Kuraray Clearfil SE Bond). Methods: Ninety extracted premolars were assigned to enamel and dentin groups (n = 45 each) and prepared with coarse grit (120), fine grit (600) silicon carbide paper, or air abrasion (Aluminium Oxide for enamel, Sylc for dentin). Surfaces were bonded with one of the adhesives and restored with composite. Enamel was treated in an etch-and-rinse mode, dentin in self-etch mode. SBS was tested using a universal testing machine. Failure surfaces were examined under SEM to assess fracture morphology and EDS to determine elemental composition. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA/Tukey's post-hoc test and Weibull statistics (P ≤ 0.05). Results: In enamel, SBS generally increased from coarse to fine to air abrasion. Kuraray Clearfil SE Bond yielded the highest values, particularly with air abrasion (9.11 ± 0.51 MPa). In dentin, fine grit achieved the highest SBS across all adhesives, followed by air abrasion; coarse grit showed the lowest. Kuraray consistently outperformed the universal adhesives in most dentin conditions. SEM/EDS revealed predominantly adhesive failures; occasional cohesive failures in dentin (Ivoclar) and enamel (Kuraray) corresponded with higher SBS and Weibull reliability. Conclusion: Both surface preparation and adhesive type significantly influence SBS. Kuraray showed superior performance and reliability, while fine grit and air abrasion enhanced bonding efficacy. SEM/EDS findings corroborated the mechanical results.
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.