ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Dent. Med.
Sec. Dental Materials
Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fdmed.2025.1698820
Bioengineering Perspectives on Adhesive Delivery: Performance Analysis of Dental Microapplicators
Provisionally accepted
Rim Bourgi1,2,3*
Celso Afonso Klein Junior4Laura Rebelo Allram4Luciana Gonçalves Heck4
Louis Hardan2
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez5*Chana Mesquita4Fabio Herrmann Coelho-de-Souza6
Naji Kharouf7Youssef Haikel7*- 1Université de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
- 2Universite Saint-Joseph de Beyrouth, Beirut, Lebanon
- 3Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon
- 4Universidade Luterana do Brasil, Canoas, Brazil
- 5Universidad Autonoma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Mexico
- 6Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
- 7Universite de Strasbourg, Strasbourg, France
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: The precise and consistent application of adhesive systems is essential for achieving reliable bonding in restorative dentistry. Microapplicators are commonly used for adhesive delivery; however, variations in their structural quality and performance may affect clinical outcomes. Objective: This study evaluated four commercially available microapplicator brands—Angelus, FGM, KG Sorensen, and SDI—regarding the quality of their active tips (bristle configuration) and adhesive delivery capacity. Methods: A total of 160 microapplicators (40 per brand) were analyzed. Optical microscopy (15 per brand) assessed bristle integrity before and after use. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM; 10 per brand) evaluated surface morphology (five unused and five used applicators per brand). Adhesive release capacity (15 per brand) was determined by weighing each mi-croapplicator before adhesive loading, after loading, and following application to a standardized cavity. Data was analyzed using One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: New microapplicators from Angelus, KG Sorensen, and SDI displayed uniform bristle arrangements without visible gaps. After use, SDI and Angelus maintained superior bristle cohesion, whereas FGM showed the greatest deformation and sparse bristle distribution. Despite morphological differences, all brands delivered adhesive with comparable efficiency, exceeding 96% release. Conclusions: SDI microapplicators demonstrated the highest structural stability and resistance to deformation, followed by Angelus, KG Sorensen, and FGM. Although adhesive release capacity was consistent across all brands, differences in bristle quality may influence handling characteristics and clinical precision.
Keywords: adhesive system, Microapplicators, restorative dentistry, Bonding (D), Adhesives
Received: 04 Sep 2025; Accepted: 20 Oct 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Bourgi, Klein Junior, Rebelo Allram, Gonçalves Heck, Hardan, Cuevas-Suárez, Mesquita, Coelho-de-Souza, Kharouf and Haikel. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Rim Bourgi, rim.bourgi@net.usj.edu.lb
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, cecuevas@uaeh.edu.mx
Youssef Haikel, youssef.haikel@unistra.fr
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.