Effects of Riboflavin Collagen Crosslinker on Dentin Adhesive Bonding Efficiency: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate published data regarding riboflavin (RF) as a cross-linker for improved adhesive bond strength to dentin and to analyze previous studies for optimal concentration of riboflavin range suitable for dentin bond. Saliva and distilled water were used as storage media and aging time was 24 h and 6 months. Results of meta-analysis were synthesized using a statistical method of inverse variance in random effects with a 95% Confidence Interval (CI). Cochrane review manager 5.4.1 was used to determine results of the meta-analysis. In total, 3172 articles were found from search databases “PubMed”, “Scopus”, and “Google Scholar”. Six of the fifteen studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Micro tensile strength shows significant improvement with the addition of riboflavin (p < 0.05) compared to without the addition of riboflavin from with 95% CI. A significant difference has been found in micro tensile bond strength between use of the riboflavin cross-linker and without use of the riboflavin crosslinker in the dentin adhesive system. With a 95% confidence interval (CI), the I2 for micro tensile strength was 89% with strong heterogeneity, Chi2 = 44.76, df = 5 (p < 0.00001), and overall effect size is Z = 2.22 (p = 0.03) after immediate aging. Chiang et al. 2013 shows maximum mean differences which is 38.50 [17.93–59.07]. After 6 months of aging in distilled water or artificial saliva micro tensile bond strength has been increased with the addition of riboflavin (p < 0.05). It can be clearly seen that pooled effect and 95% CI did not cross the line of no effect. With a 95% confidence interval (CI), the I2 for micro tensile strength was 96% with strong heterogeneity, Chi2 = 117.56, df = 5 (p < 0.00001), and overall effect size is Z = 2.30 (p = 0.02). Subgroup analysis proved a similar effect of distilled water and artificial saliva as storage media on micro tensile bond strength after incorporating riboflavin as a collagen crosslinker. An artificial saliva aged forest plot also showed considerable heterogeneity with I2 = 96%; Tau2 = 257.32; Chi2 = 94.37; df = 2 (p < 0.00001); test for overall effect, Z = 1.06 (p = 0.29). Riboflavin prior to or with bonding is recommended to improve the bonding of different adhesive systems.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".