Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 425

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry

Cardoso, MV, de Almeida Neves, A, Mine, A, Coutinho, E, Van Landuyt, K, De Munck, J, Van Meerbeek, B·2011·Australian Dental Journal

Abstract

Improved dental adhesive technology has extensively influenced modern concepts in restorative dentistry. In light of minimal‐invasive dentistry, this new approach promotes a more conservative cavity design, which basically relies on the effectiveness of current enamel‐dentine adhesives. Nowadays, the interaction of adhesives with the dental substrate is based on two different strategies, commonly described as an etch‐and‐rinse and a self‐etch approach. In an attempt to simplify the bonding technique, manufacturers have decreased the number of steps necessary for the accomplishment of the bonding procedure. As a consequence, two‐step etch‐and‐rinse and one‐step (self‐etch) adhesives were introduced and gained rapid popularity in the dental market due to their claimed user‐friendliness and lower technique sensitivity. However, many concerns have been raised on the bonding effectiveness of these simplified adhesives, especially in terms of durability, although this tends to be very material dependent. In order to blend all the adhesive components into one single solution, one‐step adhesives were made more acidic and hydrophilic. Unfortunately, these properties induce a wide variety of seemingly unrelated problems that may jeopardize the effectiveness and stability of adhesion to the dental substrate. Being more susceptible to water sorption and thus nanoleakage, these adhesives are more prone to bond degradation and tend to fail prematurely as compared to their multi‐step counterparts. Incidentally, another factor that may interfere with the bonding effectiveness of adhesives is the technique used for caries removal and cavity preparation. Several tools are on the market today to effectively remove carious tissue, thereby respecting the current trend of minimum intervention. Despite their promising performance, such techniques modify the tooth substrate in different aspects, possibly affecting bonding effectiveness. Altogether, we may conclude that not only the adhesive formulation, but also substrate nature must be taken into account to achieve a stable bonding interface, rendering the restorative treatment more predictable in terms of clinical performance. In this review, we analyse the current theoretical and clinical aspects of adhesion to enamel and dentine, and discuss the diverse possibilities to overcome problems which nowadays still challenge clinicians in their achievement of a more stable and effective bond to tooth enamel and dentine.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01294.x

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 47 references

Cited by

See all 425

Metadata

Authors
Cardoso, M., de Almeida Neves, A., Mine, A., Coutinho, E., Van Landuyt, K., De Munck, J., & Van Meerbeek, B.
Venue
Australian Dental Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-13
Volume
56
Issue
s1
Pages
31-44
ISSN
  • 0045-0421 (ISSN-L)
  • 1834-7819
OpenAlex
W1575007166
Cited by
425
References
47
FWCI
35.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01294.x
The paper
Cardoso, M., de Almeida Neves, A., Mine, A., Coutinho, E., Van Landuyt, K., De Munck, J., & Van Meerbeek, B. (2011). Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Australian Dental Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2011.01294.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.