ArticleBMC oral health2026
Commercial trends in universal adhesive evolution: updated formulations do not consistently improve dentin bond strength after aging compared with predecessors and a multistep reference.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate whether recent commercial evolutions of universal adhesives improve dentin bond strength after aging and interfacial characteristics compared with predecessor formulations and a multistep reference.
methodsThree updated universal adhesives (AFB-00, Scotchbond Universal Plus, and Clearfil Universal Quick 2) and their respective predecessors (G-Premio Bond, Scotchbond Universal, and Clearfil Universal Quick) were evaluated. OptiBond FL served as a multistep etch-and-rinse reference. One hundred eighty human molars were prepared to expose mid-coronal dentin surfaces and assigned to 15 groups (n = 12 per group). Adhesives were applied in self-etch (SE1) or etch-and-rinse (ER2) modes according to the applicable manufacturers' instructions. The macroshear bond strength (SBS) was measured after 6 months of storage in water. Failure modes were recorded, and representative samples were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to assess the interfacial morphology and adhesive layer thickness. The data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsAfter aging, SBS differed among protocols. AFB-00 and Clearfil Universal Quick 2 performed comparably to their predecessors, whereas Scotchbond Universal Plus showed a significantly lower SBS than Scotchbond Universal. Most universal adhesive protocols showed SBS values comparable or superior to the multistep reference, except Clearfil Universal Quick and Clearfil Universal Quick 2 in self-etch mode. SEM revealed strategy-dependent interfacial patterns and marked differences in adhesive film thickness, particularly for AFB-00 without air drying.
conclusionsRecent commercial evolutions of universal adhesives did not systematically improve dentin bond strength after aging. The observed modifications primarily affected the interfacial morphology and adhesive thickness rather than demonstrating consistently higher SBS values after aging. For clinicians, these findings suggest that commercial evolutions of universal adhesives may reflect distinct formulation strategies rather than incremental improvements, and that the performance of updated materials cannot be assumed from that of their predecessors.
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.