Trial reportBioMed research international2016
Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years.
Trial report in BioMed research international, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Evaluation of the efficacy of a 2-step etch-and-rinse, 2-step self-etch and 1-step self-etch adhesive systems, in class II primary molars restorations. An one year prospective, randomized clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022Trial
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The Effect of Bonding Strategy and Aging on Adhesion to Primary Enamel: An In-Vitro Study.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Article
- Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (
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.