ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
Operator Experience Does Not Affect the Reliability of Universal Adhesives' Bond Strength; Adhesive Type Does.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the influence of operators' experience, dentin moisture condition (DMC), and adhesive type on shear bond strength, and evaluate the consistency of adhesive performance under these conditions to demonstrate clinical reliability. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Six hundred sound dentin surfaces were randomly divided by five dentists with at least 10 years of experience (n = 300/5 dentists) and five first-year dental students without dental experience (n = 300/5 students). Each operator applied universal (UA) (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar) and etch-and-rinse (ERA) (OptiBond FL, Kerr) adhesives (n = 60/adhesive type) before and after receiving demonstration on the manufacturers' recommended application techniques by the principal investigator (PI), on wet, moist, and dry dentin surfaces (n = 5/DMC). DMCs were obtained by the PI before the operators applied the adhesives. The PI applied composite restorations (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar) and polymerized for 20 s. Shear bond strength (SBS) test was conducted after 24 h storage at 37°C, in 100% humidity. Boxplot, Log Worth, and Tukey HSD were used for statistics.
resultsThe median SBS of ERA obtained by dentists was 17.79 MPa with an interquartile range (IQR) of 19.61, while students showed a lower median of 13.52 MPa with IQR of 15.81. The UA showed consistency in SBS and reduced variability across operators with median SBS by dentists and students (25.53 MPa and 24.96 MPa, respectively), with narrower IQRs of 10.6 and 7.3, respectively. SBS of UA was significantly higher than ERA (P 0.001). UA obtained 7.38 MPa ± 0.89 greater SBS than ERA. While no difference in SBS by operator was observed for UA, dentists obtained 1.65 MPa ± 0.73 greater SBS than students with ERA. Dry and moist dentin surface conditions yielded higher SBS values compared to wet surfaces (P 0.001 and P 0.002, respectively), with no significant differences observed between moist and dry surfaces.
conclusionThe tested UA provided reliable outcomes regardless of operator and DMC.
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.