ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Effect of Different Specimen Preparation Methods on Dentin Shear Bond Strength: Polyethylene Tubes vs Jig System.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study evaluated the influence of different specimen preparation methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) of a universal adhesive to dentin, with the aim of identifying a more standardized and reliable protocol for SBS testing. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Thirty-three extracted molars were used to obtain 66 dentin surfaces. After surface preparation with 600-grit silicon carbide paper, specimens were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 22) according to the specimen preparation technique: tube-removed (polyethylene tubes removed before testing), tube-retained (tubes left in place during testing), and jig-based (Ultradent jig system, South Jordan, UT, USA). SBS testing was performed using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min. Failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope and representative specimens were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tamhane's T2 post-hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were found among the groups (P 0.001). The highest mean SBS values were obtained in the jig-based group, followed by the tube-removed and tube-retained groups. Adhesive failure was predominant across all groups, with 100% adhesive failures observed in the jig-based group. SEM analysis revealed a more clearly delineated bonding interface in the jig-based group, while tube-based groups exhibited minor polyethylene residues.
conclusionThese findings indicate that the specimen preparation method plays a critical role in the reliability and interpretation of SBS testing outcomes. The jig-based approach may provide more consistent and reproducible SBS results compared to tube-based methods, highlighting the importance of standardized specimen fabrication in adhesive dentistry research.
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.