Bond strengths of nine current dentine adhesive systems to primary and permanent teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of nine dentine bonding systems (DBS) of different classes to human primary and permanent dentine. Flat dentine occlusal surfaces were produced on human molars (100 primary, 100 permanent) by wet grinding on a 800-grit SiC paper. Nine DBS were applied following the manufacturers' instructions: One total etch multi-step system: Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (3M/ESPE); Four total etch one-bottle system: Prime &Bond 2.1 (Dentsply), One Step (Bisco), Scotchbond 1 (3M/ESPE), and OptibondSolo Plus (Kerr); Three two-step self-etching primer systems: Clearfil Liner Bond 2 (Kuraray), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), and Prime &Bond NT with NRC (Dentsply); An 'all-in-one' self-etching system: Prompt L-Pop (3M/ESPE). Composite (Z100; 3M/ESPE) cylinders (2 mm diameter, 3 mm high) were polymerized on the treated dentine surfaces and the specimens were stored at 37 degrees C for 24 h prior to testing. Twenty experimental groups were produced and tested. Statistical analysis revealed both a substrate and a bonding system effect. Two adhesive systems (One Step, Prime &Bond NT) had significantly higher bond strengths on permanent than on primary dentine. There was an effect of dentine bonding system on the mode of fracture. Although eight of the 10 DBS tested exhibited higher median SBS values on permanent dentine than on primary dentine, the dependent pairwise comparison identified a significant difference only for two groups. The use of simplified bonding systems does not necessarily result in improved bond strength to primary or to permanent dentine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".