Trial reportClinical oral investigations2014
Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- HEMA-free versus HEMA-containing adhesive systems: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2025Pooled it
- Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Pooled it
- Fourteen-year Clinical Performance of a HEMA-free One-step Self-etch Adhesive in Non-carious Cervical Lesions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- Three-year Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- Effect of cavity lining on the restoration of root surface carious lesions: a split-mouth, 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Effect of the Adhesive Strategy on Clinical Performance and Marginal Integrity of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions in a Randomized 36-Month Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Quantitative Margin Analysis of a Universal Adhesive Using a Randomized Clinical Trial over Three Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Effect of Sonic Activation on Push-Out Bond Strength of Fiber Post: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Marginal integrity of low-shrinking versus methacrylate-based composite: effect of different one-step self-etch adhesives.Odontology · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free one-step adhesive. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred sixty-seven cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with the composite Gradia Direct (GC), bonded with either the one-step self-etch adhesive G-Bond (GC) or the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr) in a random order. The restorations were evaluated for retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and caries occurrence after 5 years. Specific statistics were used to account for the clustered data (multiple restorations per patient).
resultsThe clinical success rate for G-Bond (87.4 %) was not significantly different from that of Optibond FL (90.9 %). Both adhesives showed progressive marginal deterioration, but G-Bond exhibited more small enamel defects and marginal discoloration, and unlike previous recalls, several restorations failed because of deep microleakage. Large sclerotic lesions were a significant risk factor for retention loss with G-Bond. Irrespective of the adhesive, almost all restorations with retention loss were located in the lower jaw.
conclusionAfter 5 years of clinical service, restorations bonded with the HEMA-free one-step adhesive did not need repair or replacement more often than those with the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, and both adhesives had a high retention rate (>90 %). There were indications that G-Bond did not (self-)etch enough in some clinical situations, as G-Bond exhibited more incisal defects and marginal discolorations, and sclerotic lesions were at higher risk of retention loss. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical performance of the HEMA-free one-step adhesive was clinically acceptable after 5 years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.