ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
The influence of various adhesive applicators on the bond strength to dentin: an in vitro experimental study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative In Vitro Evaluation of Residual Fiber Contamination from Applicators in the Adhesive Interface.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Bioengineering perspectives on adhesive delivery: performance analysis of dental microapplicators.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of various adhesive applicators on the microshear bond strength (µSBS) of flowable resin composite to dentin. Methods: Forty-two extracted molars were prepared as disks and divided into two groups. In the first group, GLUMA Bond Universal (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH) was applied to the tooth surface for 20 seconds using a bristle brush, while in the second group, the same adhesive was applied by the same operator using a microbrush. Photopolymerization was performed for 10 seconds using a Valo light-curing unit (Ultradent Products Inc.). Microcylindrical silicone tubes (2 mm long, 0.8 mm inner diameter) were used as molds on the bonded dentin surfaces, and Charisma Bulk Flow ONE resin composite (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH) was injected and cured for 20 seconds. Both groups underwent a µSBS test, and the failure modes were examined microscopically. Student t-test compared the failure stress between the groups (p < 0.05). Results: The bristle brush group had the highest mean stress at failure (49.09 ± 8.76 MPa) compared to the microbrush group (37.20 ± 6.77 MPa), which also had the highest percentage of adhesive failure (95.24%). Conclusions: The choice of adhesive applicator plays a significant role in determining the µSBS of flowable resin composite to dentin. It is advisable to use a bristle brush applicator when applying adhesive.
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.