ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Comparison of Microtensile Bond Strengths of Giomers Using HEMA-Based and HEMA-Free Silane Adhesive With Laser-Cut and Bur-Cut Dentin.
Article in International journal of 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Bonding to laser-cut dentin is challenging to different types of adhesive systems. This study design aimed to compare the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) of surface prereacted glass (S-PRG)/giomer restoration to both laser-cut dentin and bur-cut dentin bonded with either bioactive hydroxyethyle methacrylate (HEMA)-based adhesive (with S-PRG filler) or HEMA-free silane-based adhesive (without S-PRG filler) in a laboratory simulation of clinical conditions. Materials and Methods: Forty molar teeth were divided equally into four groups ( Results: Two-way ANOVA showed that the type of bonding agent had a significant effect on bond strength, with the FL-Bond II samples (16.31 MPa ± 4.10) having significantly higher bond strengths than the BeautiBond Xtream samples (8.58 MPa ± 1.98). The effect of dentin preparation (bur or laser) was not statistically significant ( Conclusions: Laser irradiation did not affect the dentin bond strength of resin composites, while the adhesive's chemical composition played a decisive role in bond performance. The bond performance of FL-Bond II was superior to BeautiBond Xtream across dentin preparations.
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.