Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23949016›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2014

Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions.

Kirsten L Van Landuyt, Jan De Munck, R Banu Ermis, Marleen Peumans, Bart Van Meerbeek

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kirsten L Van LanduytKU Leuven BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Sciences and University Hospitals Leuven, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium. kirsten.vanlanduyt@med.kuleuven.be.
Jan De MunckKU Leuven BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Sciences and University Hospitals Leuven, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
R Banu ErmisDepartment of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
Marleen PeumansKU Leuven BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Sciences and University Hospitals Leuven, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Bart Van MeerbeekKU Leuven BIOMAT, Department of Oral Health Sciences and University Hospitals Leuven, University of Leuven, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BESüleyman Demirel University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Dental CementsDental EtchingMethacrylatesHumansTooth CervixDental Cementshydroxyethyl methacrylateMethacrylates

Identifiers

PMID23949016
OpenAlexW2035406806

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.