SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Comparison of universal adhesives used in different etching modes on dentin bond strength: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 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.
- Comparison of Four Universal Adhesive Protocols for the Internal Adaptation of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Micro-CT Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin before and after ageing using a network meta-analysis. METHODOLOGY: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases. In vitro studies evaluating the bond strength of universal adhesives to sound dentin in self-etch or etch-and-rinse modes, both before and after ageing, were included. Studies were required to include at least one control group (Scotchbond Universal). Data were analyzed using a Bayesian network meta-analysis, and adhesive performance was ranked using SUCRA (Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking) values. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using the QUIN tool. Reporting/publication bias in the network meta-analysis was further examined with the ROB-MEN tool, and the results were incorporated into the CINeMA framework.
resultsOut of 1677 identified studies, 82 met the inclusion criteria for quantitative synthesis. Most studies were assessed as having a low risk of bias (52.4%), followed by a moderate risk (46.4%) and a high risk (1.2%). Twenty-two universal adhesives were included in the network meta-analyses. According to SUCRA rankings, G2-Bond Universal (GC, Japan), OptiBond Universal (Kerr, USA), and Scotchbond Universal (3 M ESPE, USA) showed the highest bonding potential in self-etch mode before ageing. After ageing, G2-Bond Universal, Zipbond Universal (SDI, Australia), and Scotchbond Universal remained the top-performing adhesives in self-etch mode. In the etch-and-rinse mode, Zipbond Universal consistently demonstrated the highest performance both before and after ageing. Overall, most comparisons showed high certainty of evidence.
conclusionsThe bond strength of universal adhesives appears to be determined primarily by their application strategy and material composition, rather than by the presence of specific functional monomers. However, this observation should be interpreted with caution, as further clinical validation is needed to confirm these findings.
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.