Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30109443›Full record

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.

Fatma Dilsad Oz, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk, Canan Ozturk, Reza Soleimani, Sevil Gurgan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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.] · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Efficacy of light-cured luting systems for CAD-CAM milled resin indirect restorations.Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Fatma Dilsad OzFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. dilsadoz@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7450-723X
Zeynep Bilge KutukFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Canan OzturkDenizli Dental Hospital, Denizli, Turkey.
Reza SoleimaniFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Sevil GurganFaculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Composite ResinsDental Restoration, PermanentDentin-Bonding AgentsTooth CervixAdultAgedDental CementsDental Marginal AdaptationDental Restoration FailureFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesResin CementsClearfil Bonding AgentComposite ResinsDental CementsDentin-Bonding Agentsflowable hybrid compositeiBondResin CementsNon-carious cervical lesionSelective etchingUniversal adhesive

Identifiers

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.