ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of Residual Fiber Contamination from Applicators in the Adhesive Interface.
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
purposeTo evaluate and compare the presence and distribution of residual fibers from two different brands of adhesive applicators within the adhesive interface after active application of a universal adhesive. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eighteen sound human molars were prepared with standardized Class II cavities and randomly assigned to two groups (n = 9) according to the applicator used: group P (Proclinic SAU, Spain) or group K (Kerr, USA). A one-step self-etch universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Plus; Solventum, USA) was actively applied following the manufacturer's instructions. After polymerization, specimens were examined under ultraviolet (UV) light using an optical microscope. Residual fibers were identified, quantified, and categorized according to their location (external cavity surfaces, cavosurface margins, internal line angles, axial walls, and cavity floors). Data were analyzed using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton exact test (P 0.05).
resultsResidual fibers were detected in all specimens, predominantly on external cavity surfaces, cavosurface margins, and axial walls. Statistically significant differences were observed between the two applicator brands (P 0.05), with group P showing a higher number and greater length of fibers than group K.
conclusionBoth applicator brands released microscopic fibers that became incorporated into the adhesive interface, revealing an unrecognized source of contamination and leading to rejection of the null hypothesis. Fiber distribution was not homogeneous across cavity surfaces. The proposed methodology proved effective for detecting and localizing applicator-derived residues, highlighting an overlooked source of contamination that may influence adhesive performance and restoration durability.
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.