The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Status of Ten Dentin Adhesive Systems
Abstract
Laboratory testing of dentin adhesive systems still requires corroboration by long-term clinical trials for their ultimate clinical effectiveness to be validated. The objective of this clinical investigation was to evaluate, retrospectively, the clinical effectiveness of earlier-investigated dentin adhesive systems (Scotchbond, Gluma, Clearf il New Bond, Scotchbond 2, Tenure, and Tripton), and to compare their clinical results with those obtained with four modern total-etch adhesive systems (Bayer exp. 1 and 2, Clearfil Liner Bond System, and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose). In total, 1177 Class V cervical lesions in the teeth of 346 patients were restored following two cavity designs: In Group A, enamel was neither beveled nor intentionally etched, as per ADA guidelines; in Group B, adjacent enamel was beveled and conditioned. Clinical retention rates definitely indicated the improved clinical efficacy of the newest dentin adhesives over the earlier systems. With regard to adhesion strategy, adhesive systems that removed the smear layer and concurrently demineralized the dentin surface layer performed clinically better than systems that modified the disorderly layer of smear debris without complete removal. Hybridization by resin interdiffusion into the exposed dentinal collagen layer, combined with attachment of resin tags into the opened dentin tubules, appeared to be essential for reliable dentin bonding but might be insufficient by itself. The additional formation of an elastic bonding area as a polymerization shrinkage absorber and the use of a microfine restorative composite apparently guaranteed an efficient clinical result. The perfect one-year retention recorded for Clearfil Liner Bond System and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose must be confirmed at later recalls.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Cited by
Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes
Van Meerbeek, B., Peumans, M., Poitevin, A., Mine, A., Van Ende, A., Neves, A., & De Munck, J. (2010) · Dental Materials · doi:10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.148 · Cited by 835
Self-citationThe clinical performance of adhesives
Van Meerbeek, B., Perdigão, J., Lambrechts, P., & Vanherle, G. (1998) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00070-x · Cited by 566
Self-citationA Prospective Ten-Year Clinical Trial of Porcelain Veneers: swift
(2006) · Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · doi:10.2310/6130.2006.00019_1.x · Cited by 258
Clinical evaluation of replacement of Class V resin based composite restorations
Gordan, V. V. (2001) · Journal of Dentistry · doi:10.1016/s0300-5712(01)00030-6 · Cited by 83
In vitro evaluation of margins of replaced resin based composite restorations
GORDAN, V. V. (2000) · Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry · doi:10.1111/j.1708-8240.2000.tb00223.x · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Van Meerbeek, B., Peumans, M., Verschueren, M., Gladys, S., Braem, M., Lambrechts, P., & Vanherle, G.
- Venue
- Journal of Dental Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1994-11
- Volume
- 73
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1690-1702
- ISSN
- 0022-0345 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-0591
- OpenAlex
- W1826106668
- Cited by
- 177
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 18.81
- 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: Clinical Status of Ten Dentin Adhesive Systems. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/00220345940730110401
- The paper
- Van Meerbeek, B., Peumans, M., Verschueren, M., Gladys, S., Braem, M., Lambrechts, P., & Vanherle, G. (1994). Clinical Status of Ten Dentin Adhesive Systems. Journal of Dental Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345940730110401
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.