Key Takeaways
- Both All-Bond Universal and Scotchbond Universal Plus are single-bottle universal adhesives, but only one has kept its formulation chemically stable over time in BISCO's internal aging testing.
- All-Bond Universal shows a higher average dentin shear bond strength than Scotchbond Universal Plus across all four etch and cure mode combinations tested.
- The real differentiator isn't what's on the label. It's what is — and isn't — in the bottle.
Ready to see how All-Bond Universal performs in your own hands? Explore the full technique guide HERE.
Universal adhesives are marketed as interchangeable. Pick one, and it should work for total-etch, self-etch, or selective-etch, on direct or indirect restorations, with or without a separate activator. That framing makes it easy to assume that any "universal" adhesive performs the same as the next one, and that the choice comes down to price or habit rather than chemistry.
That assumption doesn't hold up well once you look at what's actually in the bottle. BISCO has spent more than 45 years developing dental adhesive chemistry, and that history is reflected in how All-Bond Universal is formulated, tested, and positioned against other universal adhesives on the market, including Scotchbond Universal Plus (3M/Solventum).
Here's what the data shows about where these two adhesives actually differ, so you can make the call based on evidence, not marketing copy.
Why the Dental Adhesive You Choose Matters More Than the Marketing Suggests
"Universal" is a category, not a guarantee of equivalent performance. Every product in this category claims compatibility with all etch techniques and all cure modes, but the monomers, solvents, and pH levels underneath those claims vary considerably from one manufacturer to the next. Those differences show up later, in bond strength, in moisture sensitivity, and in how a restoration holds up over months and years of function, not on day one in the operatory.
That's the same technique-sensitivity story that shows up whenever you dig into why a bond fails: the material matters as much as the hand applying it. Before choosing (or switching) a universal adhesive, it's worth understanding what's actually different between the leading options, starting with what's in the bottle.
A Quick Look at Both All-Bond Universal and Scotchbond Universal Plus
The BISCO Formulation
All-Bond Universal is a single-bottle, light-cured adhesive built to work across all direct and indirect restorations, in any cure mode, with any bonding technique. It's backed by more than 135 published research studies and has been in continuous clinical use since 2012.
The Solventum Formulation
Scotchbond Universal Plus is also marketed as a single-bottle universal adhesive compatible with total-, self-, and selective-etch techniques. Launched in 2020, it's positioned by Solventum as the successor to the original Scotchbond Universal — the first universal adhesive on the market, introduced in 2011. Per its own public instructions for use, Scotchbond Universal Plus does not require a separate activator for self- or dual-cure applications, similar to All-Bond Universal.
Dental Bonding Chemistry: The Engine Under the Hood
The single biggest difference between these two adhesives isn't etch mode or bottle count. It's silane.
All-Bond Universal's primary adhesive functional monomer is MDP, which is hydrophobic in nature and has the highest log P (partition coefficient) value among common adhesive monomers1, meaning it resists water uptake and helps the cured adhesive layer stay durable over time. MDP also bonds directly with calcium, forming self-assembled nano-layers at the adhesive interface2, and its stable hydrophobic interaction with collagen supports a more durable bond3.
All-Bond Universal also has an ultra-mild pH of approximately 3.2, which allows it to work with dual- and self-cured materials without a separate activator. That mild pH is achieved through a low-water, high-ethanol solvent system, which helps prevent the water blisters and weak bonds that can result when residual water gets trapped in the adhesive layer4-7. Scotchbond Universal Plus, by comparison, has a pH of 2.7 and a water content of 8%, roughly three times higher than All-Bond Universal's 2.5%.*
Here's the part that doesn't show up in most side-by-side spec sheets: All-Bond Universal deliberately contains no silane and no fillers. Silane is the coupling agent that's traditionally responsible for bonding to glass-ceramic surfaces, and its absence is intentional. Studies have shown that silane included directly in a low-pH universal adhesive can become chemically unstable over time, which weakens the very bond it's meant to create8-10. Scotchbond Universal Plus, per its own public instructions for use, includes silane directly in its formulation.
BISCO's data on file backs this up over an even longer window: a standalone silane primer (Porcelain Primer) measured 32.44 MPa at time zero and held at 32.7 MPa after 78 weeks of aging, essentially no change. Applied on its own, in a formulation built for that one job, silane holds its bond strength; folded into a low-pH universal adhesive, it doesn't.
Table description:
Bond strength of Scotchbond Universal Plus silane on non-etched e.max, isolating chemical (not mechanical) adhesion. Initial bond strength dropped significantly after room-temperature and accelerated aging. For comparison, a separate silane application (Porcelain Primer) maintained 32.7 MPa after 78 weeks, demonstrating superior long-term bond stability:
| Aging Condition | 0 Weeks | 16 Weeks | 24 Weeks |
| Room-Temperature Aging | 21.15 MPa | 21.35 MPa | 8.45 MPa |
| 37°C Accelerated Aging | 21.15 MPa | 8.89 MPa | 9.53 MPa |
BISCO has data on file. Testing performed on non-etched lithium disilicate (e.max) surfaces to isolate the chemical interaction between silane and the ceramic.
The clinical takeaway isn't that silane is a bad idea, it's that silane belongs in a separate, purpose-built step rather than sitting in a low-pH adhesive bottle for months at a time. That's why All-Bond Universal pairs with a standalone porcelain primer, such as Porcelain Primer/Bis-Silane, for glass-ceramic bonding rather than folding silane into the adhesive itself.
All-Bond Universal also omits fillers, which can increase film viscosity and thickness, interfering with the adhesive's ability to flow into etched surfaces and, at higher thicknesses, requiring radiopaque additives to avoid misdiagnosis on radiographs11. All-Bond Universal's film thickness is under 10 microns, thin enough that it doesn't need to be radiopaque at all.
Bond Strength & Durability Data
BISCO has data on file comparing dentin shear bond strength between All-Bond Universal (paired with Duo-Link Universal cement) and Scotchbond Universal Plus (paired with RelyX Universal cement) across all four combinations of etch technique and cure mode:
| Etch / Cure Mode | All-Bond Universal / Duo-Link Universal | Scotchbond Universal Plus / RelyX Universal |
| Total-Etch / Light-Cured | 38.85 +/- 3.84 MPa | 35.05 +/- 5.98 MPa |
| Total-Etch / Self-Cured | 36.11 +/- 8.35 MPa | 28.05 +/- 6.68 MPa |
| Self-Etch / Light-Cured | 35.27 +/- 4.29 MPa | 31.21 +/- 2.97 MPa |
| Self-Etch / Self-Cured | 33.16 +/- 5.04 MPa | 27.93 +/- 10.57 MPa |
BISCO has data on file.
All-Bond Universal shows a higher average bond strength than Scotchbond Universal Plus in every mode tested. It's worth being straightforward about the variability in this kind of testing: bond-strength values naturally carry wide error bars, and the ranges for the two products overlap in some modes. In this dataset, All-Bond Universal performed at least as well as, and numerically higher on average than, Scotchbond Universal Plus across all four modes tested — though not that it outperformed it in every single sample.
Etching Mode Flexibility & Substrate-Specific Performance
Both adhesives support total-etch, self-etch, and selective-etch techniques, and both bond to direct and indirect restorations. Where they diverge is in substrate-specific priming, and this is where a "universal" label can be misleading if taken too literally.
For glass ceramics, All-Bond Universal's silane-free formulation means glass-ceramic restorations need a separate silane application, the same separate-silane approach that remains the gold standard for bonding to feldspathic porcelain and lithium disilicate. For zirconia and other MDP-receptive substrates, an MDP-containing primer is still recommended for reliable adhesion; a "universal" adhesive is not automatically universal across every ceramic substrate, regardless of brand.
This mirrors the same substrate-specific logic that applies to any adhesive protocol: the etch mode and the primer step should match the substrate in front of you, not just the adhesive bottle on the tray.
Clinical Workflow & Ease of Placement
On the basics, the two systems look similar: both cure in 10 seconds, both tolerate wet, dry, or moist dentin, and both are single-bottle systems that don't require an activator for self- or dual-cure use. Storage requirements differ slightly: All-Bond Universal carries a 24-month shelf life at room temperature, while Scotchbond Universal Plus is rated for 36 months and also does not require refrigeration provided room temperature stays below 25°C/77°F.
Where All-Bond Universal's mild pH (3.2) shows a concrete workflow advantage is cement compatibility. Because it doesn't need a separate activator at any pH, it pairs with third-party self- and dual-cure resin cements without an extra bottle or step. BISCO has data on file showing dentin shear bond strength when All-Bond Universal is paired with a range of resin cements from other manufacturers:
| Cement Pairing | Total-Etch | Self-Etch |
| Duo-Link Universal (BISCO) | 36.11 +/- 8.35 MPa | 33.16 +/- 5.04 MPa |
| Calibra Ceram (Dentsply Sirona) | 36.12 +/- 8.83 MPa | 28.67 +/- 4.88 MPa |
| RelyX Universal (Solventum) | 31.62 +/- 7 MPa | 22.21 +/- 6.18 MPa |
| RelyX Ultimate (Solventum) | 31.19 +/- 5.51 MPa | 23.82 +/- 4.8 MPa |
| Variolink Esthetic DC (Ivoclar) | 29.93 +/- 11.77 MPa | 34.94 +/- 11.18 MPa |
BISCO has data on file.
Four Decades of Research Behind the Chemistry
This isn't BISCO's first universal adhesive, and the chemistry decisions in this formulation, including leaving silane out, build on more than 40 years of adhesive dentistry research led by BISCO founder Dr. Byoung Suh. That body of work now includes more than 135 published research studies, spanning monomer chemistry, hydrophobicity, and long-term bond durability.
Scanning electron microscopy of All-Bond Universal's dentin bond interface shows a hybrid layer of roughly 1 to 1.5 microns in total-etch mode, with resin tags extending 50 to 100 microns into dentinal tubules; in self-etch mode, resin tags range from about 20 to 40 microns, since the smear layer is not fully removed12. That level of published, substrate-level detail is part of what separates a formulation with a research history from one built primarily around marketing convenience.
So, Which One Should You Choose?
If you're bonding a direct composite restoration with straightforward moisture control, both adhesives will get the job done, and the choice may come down to what's already on your tray.
If you're routinely bonding to glass ceramics or lithium disilicate restorations, All-Bond Universal's separate-silane protocol is worth the extra step: it avoids putting a chemically unstable coupling agent into a low-pH bottle in the first place. If you're pairing your adhesive with cements from multiple manufacturers, or you want one system that never needs an activator regardless of pH, All-Bond Universal's compatibility data gives you a clearer evidence trail to point to. And if numerically higher average dentin bond strength across all four etch and cure modes—based on this dataset, without formal statistical testing—matters for the cases you're placing, that's the direction the data leans.
The Bottom Line
Two universal adhesives can look nearly identical on a spec sheet, single bottle, 10-second cure, all etch modes, and still differ substantially in what happens to that formulation over the months it sits on your shelf and in the months after it's bonded to a patient's tooth. All-Bond Universal's decision to leave silane out, keep the pH mild, and minimize water content isn't a marketing angle; it's a chemistry decision backed by more than 45 years of adhesive research and consistent bond-strength data across etch modes, cure modes, and cement pairings.
Curious how All-Bond Universal fits into your own bonding protocol? Take a closer look at the full technique guide, clinical cases, and ordering information HERE.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is All-Bond Universal compatible with self-cure and dual-cure composites?
Yes. Its ultra-mild pH of 3.2 allows it to work with all light-, self-, and dual-cured materials without a separate activator.
How long do I light-cure All-Bond Universal?
Ten seconds, after thoroughly air-drying the adhesive for at least 10 seconds until the surface has a uniform, glossy appearance.
Does All-Bond Universal require a separate primer for zirconia or glass ceramics?
For glass ceramics and lithium disilicate, yes — a separate silane-based porcelain primer is required, since All-Bond Universal's formulation is intentionally silane-free. For zirconia, a separate primer isn't strictly required, since All-Bond Universal already contains MDP, but BISCO recommends pairing it with a dedicated MDP-containing primer (such as Z-Prime Plus) for optimal bond strength to zirconia.
References
*Tested by a third party lab via the Karl Fischer method
1. Suh, Beyoung I. "Adhesive Systems." Principles of Adhesion Dentistry: A Theoretical and Clinical Guide for Dentists, AEGIS Publications, LLC, Newtown, PA, 2013, pp. 44–47.
2. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, et al. Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res. 2012;91(4):376-381.
3. Hiraishi N, Tochio N, Kigawa T, Otsuki M, Tagami J. Monomer-collagen interactions studied by saturation transfer difference NMR. J Dent Res. 2013;92:284–288.
4. Tay FR, Suh BI, Pashley DH, Prati C, Chuang SF, Li F. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle, total-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5(2):91-105.
5. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigao J, Combe EC, Simpson CH 3rd, Nunes MF. Effects of restorative and adhesive curing methods on dentin bond strengths. Am J Dent. 2001;14(3):137-40.
6. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002;30(7-8):371-82.
7. Tay FR, King NM, Suh BI, Pashley DH. Effect of delayed activation of light-cured resin composites on bonding of all-in-one adhesives. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(3):207-25.
8. Yao C, Yu J, Wang Y, Tang C, Huang C. Acidic pH weakens the bonding effectiveness of silane contained in universal adhesives. Dent Mater. 2018;34(5):809-818.
9. Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Sonoda A, Maruo Y, Makita Y, Okihara T, Irie M, Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B. Effectiveness and stability of silane coupling agent incorporated in 'universal' adhesives. Dent Mater. 2016;32(10):1218-1225.
10. Kim YR, Kim JH, Son SA, Park JK. Effect of Silane-Containing Universal Adhesives on the Bonding Strength of Lithium Disilicate. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(14):3976.
11. Menezes LM, da Silva AF, Carvalho RM. Influence of adhesive layer thickness on the detection of dental materials by radiography. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2016;28(1):16-22.
12. Takamizawa T, Imai A, Hirokane E, Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Erickson RL, Latta MA, Miyazaki M. SEM observation of novel characteristic of the dentin bond interfaces of universal adhesives. Dent Mater. 2019;35(12):1791-1804.
Note on data attribution: figures marked "BISCO has data on file" are internal test results, not published peer-reviewed studies. Bond-strength testing conducted per BISCO's internal protocols; water content and pH values conducted by a third party via the Karl Fischer method.