MITB, Well it depends on a lot of things. The type of cut for example. Dermabond works best on shallow, straight edged cuts.
Lets say you have 2 cuts, both 1/16th of an inch deep, both 3cm long, both on the calf. One was caused by a razor, the other is a jagged cut by a rusted nail. You go the the ER, and they dermabond the razor cut because it's the easiest thing to do, but they stitch the nail cut. The scars will look SO different, and not really because of how they were treated. kwim?
I have a scar on my arm from when I was 3 and a fish tank fell on me and broke. It wasn't stitched or bonded--just butterflied. I STILL have people asking me "Wow--what happened to your arm?"
IMO(and IME--kinda), if there were 2 perfectly identical cuts and one was treated with dermabond, the other with stitches, the dermabond would look nicer--at first (lets say for 2 mos or so), because the stitched cut will alos have the little dot scars along side the actual cut. But over time, I think the stitched ones heal nicer.
Plenty of things depend on plenty of things! It depends on SO much--location of the cut, nutrition, genetics, current lifestyle factors, skill of the practitioner, nature of the cut, etc etc.
Research it and decide what's right for your family, yk? Personally, as I've said, I like the stitches for most cuts that require treatment. But I'd never think someone was "wrong" in using dermabond (unless it was something crazy, like trying to use dermabond after an appendectomy