Question · asked by 1 review
Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate): Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa)
- Population
- Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)
- Intervention
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp)
- Comparison
- Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)
- Outcome
- Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa)
In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HAp showed 4.455 MPa lower 24 h bond strength than Calcium Phosphate (MD -4.455, 95% CI -8.857 to -0.053; Moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions onlyNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 50%Moderate 1 · 50%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate) Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 24 h (immediate), In vitro; extracted permanent human teeth; bond strength testing (SBS/microSBS/microTBS), Self-Etch + chemical ACAD In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HAp showed 4.455 MPa lower 24 h bond strength than Calcium Phosphate (MD -4.455, 95% CI -8.857 to -0.053; Moderate certainty). Biomimetic Remineralization Strategies for Dentin Bond Stability-Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. (2025) All outcomes | MD -4.455 [-8.857, -0.053] | 0 studies | Moderate |
Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate) Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 24 h (immediate), In vitro; extracted permanent human teeth; bond strength testing (SBS/microSBS/microTBS), Etch-and-Rinse + chemical ACAD In the Etch-and-Rinse adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HAp vs Calcium Phosphate showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 3.736, 95% CI -3.063 to 0.536; Low certainty). Biomimetic Remineralization Strategies for Dentin Bond Stability-Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. (2025) All outcomes | MD 3.736 [-3.063, 0.536] | 0 studies | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Biomimetic Remineralization Strategies for Dentin Bond Stability-Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. 2025 All outcomes | June 2023 | 23 | Low / Moderate |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs No biomimetic remineralization (control) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium-based agent · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Fluoride agent (e.g., NaF/SDF/KF/CaF2) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs HEMA/EGDMA-based desensitizer · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
- Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Mesoporous silica (SiO2) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro) · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.