Does Shortened Application Time Affect Long-Term Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of shortened application time on long-term bond strength with universal adhesives. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three universal adhesives were used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU, Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc, Tokyo, Japan), Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SB, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) or G-Premio Bond (GP, GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan). Sixty molars were cut to expose midcoronal dentin and prepared with a regular diamond bur. Each adhesive was applied either according to the manufacturer's instruction or with shortened time. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and then cut into resin-dentin sticks. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was tested after either 24 hours or 1 year of water storage. Data were analyzed by the three-way ANOVA and Duncan tests ( α=0.05). Fracture modes were analyzed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). One dentin stick per group was selected after fracture mode analysis and further observed using transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Six additional dentin discs were prepared and conditioned with each adhesive under the different application time to observe the adhesive-smear layer interaction by SEM. RESULTS: Shortened application time affected the μTBS ( p<0.001) while storage time did not affect bond strength ( p=0.187). A significant effect of shortened application time on μTBS was observed in the CU at 1 year and in the GP at both storage times. CONCLUSIONS: One-year storage time had no effect on the μTBS of universal adhesives to bur-cut dentin. The performance of universal adhesives can be compromised when applied using a shortened application time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".