ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Analysis of Bond Strength in Endodontic Access: Immediate Endodontic Sealing Versus Delayed Endodontic Sealing.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCoronal leakage and restoration failure remain significant contributors to the failure of endodontic treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different adhesive systems and treatment protocols, specifically immediate endodontic sealing (IES) and delayed endodontic sealing (DES), on bond strength. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty extracted human mandibular third molars were prepared to expose the pulp chamber dentin and randomly assigned to six groups according to the adhesive systems (OptiBond™ FL (Kerr Dental, California, United States) or Single Bond Universal adhesive (Solventum Corporation, Eagan, Minnesota, United States)) and the treatment protocols (control, IES, and DES). Sodium hypochlorite irrigation was performed based on experimental protocols. Following composite restoration, specimens were thermocycled for artificial aging and subsequently sectioned into beams for microtensile bond strength (µTBS) testing (10 teeth per group). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test (α = 0.05).
resultsA significant interaction between adhesive system and treatment protocol was identified (p < 0.05). With OptiBond FL, IES produced significantly higher µTBS values than DES (52.85 ± 7.22 MPa vs 40.98 ± 5.76 MPa; p < 0.05) and was comparable to the control group (57.59 ± 7.18 MPa; p > 0.05). The OptiBond FL group demonstrated significantly higher bond strength than the Single Bond Universal group under all conditions (p < 0.05), whereas the IES-Single Bond Universal adhesive (34.43 ± 5.97 MPa) and DES-Single Bond Universal adhesive (30.27 ± 5.49 MPa) groups showed significantly lower µTBS values than the control-Single Bond Universal adhesive (41.12 ± 4.85 MPa; p < 0.05). Failure mode analysis revealed predominantly adhesive failures in all groups.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the in vitro study, IES with OptiBond FL resulted in higher µTBS than DES.
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.