Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019
An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical evaluation of different solvent type and HEMA-content of universal adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions: a two-year double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- 24-Month clinical evaluation of cervical restorations bonded using radio-opaque universal adhesive compared to conventional universal adhesive in carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design controlled study.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive-a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Universal Adhesive Brands Functional Performance in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: 18- to 48-Months Systematic Clinical Report.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- The Effect of Adhesive Systems on Shade Matching of Composite Veneer.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Impact of treatment modalities on stress distribution in maxillary incisors with varying levels of external cervical resorption: a finite element analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Survival Evaluation of Restorations in Pulpotomized Primary Teeth with MTA or BiodentineJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Clinical performance of different composite materials in class II cavities bonded with universal adhesives.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025Article
- Prediction of marginal adaptation failure in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions, based on machine learning.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- The Effect of Dimethyl Sulfoxide on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin.Frontiers in dentistry · 2024Article
- 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
- Comparative Evaluation of Application of Universal Bonding on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Light Cure and Dual Cure Composites Bonded to Dentin.Frontiers in dentistry · 2023Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Quantitative Margin Analysis of a Universal Adhesive Using a Randomized Clinical Trial over Three Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Universal Adhesives and Adhesion Modes in Non-Carious Cervical Restorations: 2-Year Randomised Clinical Trial.Polymers · 2021Article
- Article
- Efficacy of light-cured luting systems for CAD-CAM milled resin indirect restorations.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests.
resultsThe 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30109443What 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.