ArticleClinical and experimental dental research2026
Bond Strength of Injectable Composites Under Different Enamel Treatments and Bonding Strategies.
Article in Clinical and experimental dental research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe effectiveness of enamel acid etching may be enhanced when combined with additional surface treatments, such as diamond bur grinding. However, there are no reports of the effect of enamel grinding and bonding strategies when a universal adhesive and highly filled flowable composites are used. The aim was to evaluate the effect of enamel grinding and adhesive strategy on the microshear bond strength (micro-SBS) of injectable composite resins. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred sixty enamel specimens were randomly allocated into 16 groups according to enamel preparation (diamond bur grinding or no grinding), adhesive strategy (self-etch or etch-and-rinse), and composite type (three injectable composites and one conventional composite). After 48 h of water storage, the specimens were tested for micro-SBS in a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test for micro-SBS data, and Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test for failure mode (α = 0.05).
resultsA significant main effect was observed for bonding strategy (p < 0.001), but not for enamel preparation (p = 0.042) and composite resin (p = 0.044). The etch-and-rinse strategy resulted in significantly higher bond strength than the self-etch approach, irrespective of the enamel preparation, for all the resin composites (p < 0.05). Adhesive strategy was the most frequent mode of failure (35%), with self-etching yielding a 70% rate of adhesive failures compared to 0% for the etch-and-rinse approach.
conclusionsThe etch-and-rinse strategy improved enamel bond strength and eliminated adhesive failures for all composites tested, regardless of enamel grinding. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Enamel should be etched before applying a universal adhesive for injectable composite restorations, as this increased bond strength and eliminated adhesive failures regardless of enamel grinding or composite type. Diamond bur grinding only reduced adhesive failures when the self-etch mode was used.
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.