ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Evaluation of Micro-Shear Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Giomer To Bovine Tooth.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 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
purposeSelf-adhesive flowable giomer (SAG) has been used in dental practice recently to simplify clinical procedures and shorten chair times. However, there are only few studies evaluating its bond strength to enamel and dentin, resulting in a lack of evidence. The purpose of this study was to compare the micro-shear bond strength with and without adhesive in enamel and dentin to evaluate the self-adhesive ability of SAG. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sound bovine teeth were used as the tooth substrates. For μ-SBS tests, enamel and dentin specimens were prepared for SAG (Beautifil Kids SA - BK), a self-adhesive flowable composite (Vertise Flow - VF), and a nanohybrid flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow Plus F03 - BF). Two adhesive modes were tested for BK and VF (with self-etching adhesive and no adhesive), and one for BF (with self-etching adhesive). The μ-SBS test was conducted after 24 h and after thermocycling for 10,000 cycles using a universal testing machine.
resultsFor all materials, when self-etching adhesive was used, the μ-SBS was significantly higher than that of the no-adhesive group (P 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between the restorative materials under any condition. Thermocycling had no significant effect on the μ-SBS of BK. In the self-etching adhesive group, mixed failure was predominant for all materials. However, in no-adhesive group, adhesive failure and mixed failure were observed at similar levels for all materials.
conclusionThe self-adhesive resin without adhesive showed lower bonding strength in both enamel and dentin compared to the one with adhesive. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Although there were no significant differences in bond strength stability between materials, SAG still offers a simplified bonding process without compromising bond strength, making it a viable option for clinical use.
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.