Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design controlled study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 4 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of self-adhesive resin composite direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative clinical performance of universal adhesives versus etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: a meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Genotoxicity Associated with Residual Monomers in Restorative Dentistry: A Systematic Review.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2021Pooled it
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Newly developed universal supra-nano spherical filled resin composite in posterior teeth.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Self-Adhesive Flowable Resin Composites-Are We Going Somewhere?Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Comparison of post-treatment complications of conventional composites versus self-adhering composites: a review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
- Prospective Quasi-Experimental Study of Postoperative Pain Following Class II Composite Restorations Using the Snow-Plow and Resin-Coating Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Clinical Performance of Self-Adhesive vs. Conventional Flowable Resin Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Comprehensive Evaluation of Long-Term Dentin Bond Strength, Water Sorption, Solubility, and Degree of Conversion of Self-Adhesive Resin Composites.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024Article
- Influence of the self-adhering strategy on microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity compared to bulk-fill and conventional resin composites.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Comparative Assessment of Different Pre-Treatment Bonding Strategies to Improve the Adhesion of Self-Adhesive Composites to Dentin.Polymers · 2022Article
- One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Morphological analysis and immunohistochemical expression in restorations with self-adhesive resin: A randomized split-mouth design-controlled study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2021Article
- Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?BMC oral health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the postoperative sensitivity of restorations with self-adhesive resin composite (SAC) (Vertise Flow (VER)/Kerr) compared with conventional resin composite with self-etching adhesive (Filtek Z250 (Z250)/3M ESPE; Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB)/Kuraray). MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized, controlled, double-blind, split-mouth, two-arm clinical trial was conducted. Twenty-seven volunteers with third molars indicated for extraction received two deep class I restorations, one with each material. Postoperative sensitivity was measured at 24 h and 15 or 30 days after the restorative procedures using a visual analog scale (VAS). When present, information on the characteristics of the pain was also collected. The data were submitted to the McNemar test (α = 0.05).
resultsRegardless of the time intervals, the postoperative sensitivity was observed in 52% and 48% of the CSEB and VERT groups, respectively (p = 1.000). When the evaluation periods were analyzed, the 15-day evaluation presented the highest occurrence of pain, but of mild intensity, in both groups. All patients with sensitivity reported that the pain was localized and of short duration.
conclusionSelf-adhesive resin composite Vertise Flow and conventional resin composite with a self-etching bonding agent promoted similar response regarding postoperative sensitivity in deep class I cavities. When postoperative sensitivity was present, mild pain was observed, especially after 15 days of the restorative procedure, which decreased over time. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Postoperative sensitivity to self-adhesive resin composite (SAC) restorations in deep cavities was comparable with that of conventional restorations with a self-etching bonding agent.
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.