ReviewDental research journal2026
A systematic review of shear bond strength of sixth- and fourth-generation adhesives in primary teeth.
Review in Dental research journal, 2026. 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
Background: The use of tooth-colored restorations, particularly composite resins, in the treatment of primary teeth has become increasingly common. The durability and clinical success of these restorations largely depend on the adhesive system and its application protocol. Therefore, this study aimed to systematically review the literature comparing the shear bond strength of sixth-generation self-etch adhesives with that of fourth-generation etch-and-rinse adhesives in primary teeth. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases using relevant keywords. Out of 162 initially identified studies, 72 in-vitro studies comparing the shear bond strength of sixth- and fourth-generation adhesives on human primary teeth were screened. After assessing eligibility based on study objectives, population, sample selection, participation rate, available variables, data collection methods, statistical analyses, and results, five studies underwent full-text analysis. Ultimately, four studies met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Results: No statistically significant differences were observed in the shear bond strength between the two adhesive systems. However, minor variations were noted. Moreover, none of the included studies evaluated the long-term performance of these adhesives. Conclusion: Despite the high heterogeneity and risk of bias among the included studies, the evidence suggests that fourth-generation adhesives may exhibit slightly better shear bond strength compared to sixth-generation self-etch systems in laboratory settings. Nonetheless, due to reduced application time and technique sensitivity, self-etch systems may be preferable for pediatric patients.
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.