ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Influence of operator experience on the bond strength of etch-and-rinse, self-etch, and universal adhesive systems to dentin.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectiveTo evaluate the influence of operator experience on the bonding performance of four adhesive strategies: three- and two-step etch-and-rinse (ER), and two- and one-step self-etch (SE) systems to dentin. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-six caries-free molars were divided according to the operator experience (3YG: third-year undergraduate students; 5YG: fifth-year undergraduate students; 1YR: first-year residents in Operative and Restorative Dentistry) and four adhesive systems. The occlusal third of each crown was removed to obtain a flat, mid-coronal dentin surface, which was standardized using 600-grit silicon carbide paper. Adhesives were applied following the manufacturer's recommendations, and a 4-mm-thick composite resin build-up was placed. Specimens were sectioned into resin-dentin beams (cross-sectional area ≈ 0.8mm
resultsThe less experienced group (3YG) generally showed significantly lower µTBS and higher NL compared to more experienced operators (p < 0.05), with the exception of the 1-step SE strategy, where experience did not influence bond strength. Within the 3YG group, the 1-step SE approach yielded the highest µTBS values, whereas in the 5YG group, 1-step SE and 2-step ER showed the highest values; the 1YR group performed consistently across all adhesive systems. For NL, the 3YG group generally showed higher values than the more experienced groups, although 5YG and 1YR did not differ for the 1-step SE strategy. In the 3YG and 5YG groups, the 3-step ER strategy resulted in the highest NL values, whereas no significant differences among adhesive strategies were observed within the 1YR group.
conclusionsTwo-step etch-and-rinse and one-step self-etch adhesives showed higher µTBS values and demonstrated lower sensitivity to operator experience compared with more technique-dependent multi-step systems. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Simplified adhesive protocols may provide more predictable bonding outcomes in teaching environments and for clinicians with limited clinical experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799959What 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.