ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of microtensile bond strength and failure type analysis of two different types of universal dental adhesives. In vitro study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this research was to assess the microtensile bond strength of the recently released Beautibond Xtreme and investigate its impact on the hybrid layer compared to the Single Bond Universal.
methodsSixteen extracted teeth were collected and divided into 2 groups (n = 8) according to the type of adhesive used, Single Bond Universal (3 M ESPE) and Beautibond Xtreme (Shofu). All teeth's apical portions were embedded using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin (Imicryl, Konya, Turkey) in a silicone mold till the level of the cemento-enamel junction. The occlusal surfaces were flattened to the level of medium coronal dentin, leaving a residual thickness of about 2.5 mm. The two bonding agents were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. Following that, Shofu's Beautifil II composite was used; each increment was 2 mm high. In order to create serial resin-dentin beams with an approximate area of 1 mm², the teeth were cut perpendicular to the bonding interface with water cooling. The microtensile bond strength test was done by a universal testing machine (5566 S, Instron, Canton, MA, USA) with a load applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The specimens were then examined using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (QUANTA FEG250 Thermo Fisher Scientific, USA). Finally, the failure mode was determined. µTBS data was examined for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk and Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. The statistical power of the study was set at 80%, statistical significance was set at P ≤ 0.05 with a 95% confidence level, and all tests were two-tailed.
resultsFor the microtensile bond strength test, intergroup comparison revealed a statistically significant difference between 3 M and SHOFU (P = 0.0121), while for the failure mode, there was no statistically significant difference between both groups in failure mode (P = 0.2851).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, 3 M showed higher µTBS than Beautibond Extreme. with no statistically significant difference observed in the overall failure mode following microtensile bond strength testing.
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.