ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of Microbial Adhesion and Surface Morphology of Bonded and Non-Bonded Resin-Based Composite Materials: A SEM and Microbiological Study.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Microbial Adhesion and Surface Morphology of Bonded and Non-Bonded Resin-Based Composite Materials: A SEM and Microbiological Study.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the effect of applying bonding agents to uncured resin-based composite surfaces on microbial adhesion and surface morphology. Materials and Methods: Five resin-based composite materials (Clearfil AP-X Esthetics, Prime Dent, Beautifil II, Saremco microhybrid composite [MHC], and Saremco extra-low shrinkage composite [ELS]) were evaluated under bonded (test) and non-bonded (control) conditions ( Results: Bonded specimens exhibited significantly higher microbial adhesion than non-bonded specimens for Saremco MHC, Saremco ELS, and Clearfil AP-X Esthetics. In contrast, Prime-Dent and Beautifil II showed lower CFU values in the bonded groups compared with the non-bonded controls. Statistically significant differences between bonded and non-bonded groups were observed for all tested composite materials (Mann-Whitney Conclusion: Application of bonding agents to uncured composite resin surfaces alters surface morphology and is associated with altered microbial adhesion. These findings suggest that the clinical use of bonding agents as modeling liquids may influence the biological performance of composite restorations and should therefore be considered with caution.
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.