Trial reportBMC oral health2019
Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin - a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Prospective, randomized, paired-comparison clinical trial of a new universal adhesive in posterior composite restorations: A 2-year evaluation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations bonded with universal adhesive system using three different application modes: a 26-month randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Trial
- A Three-step Etch-and-Rinse vs a Universal Adhesive in Nanohybrid Composite Anterior Restorations: A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- Effect of 940 nm laser diode irradiation prior to bonding procedure on postoperative sensitivity following class II composite restorations: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial.Lasers in medical science · 2021Trial
- Newly developed universal supra-nano spherical filled resin composite in posterior teeth.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Template-assisted Monochromatic Structural Colored Versus Universal Multishade Direct Composite Veneers Over 3 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Porcelain Veneers in Vital vs. Non-Vital Teeth: A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Universal Adhesives and Adhesion Modes in Non-Carious Cervical Restorations: 2-Year Randomised Clinical Trial.Polymers · 2021Article
- A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2021Article
- A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2021Article
- The Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Three Dental Universal Adhesives-An In Vitro Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Influence of matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors on resin-dentin bond strength and hybrid-layer characteristics of caries-affected dentin using a universal adhesive system.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
- Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration.Brazilian dental journalArticle
- Long-term water sorption/solubility of two dental bonding agents containing a colloidal dispersion of titanium dioxide.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultimode adhesives incorporate the versatility of adapting to various clinical situations by its capacity to be used in different protocols. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin direct restorations (Class I and II) performed with different universal dentin adhesive application protocols comparing adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria.
methodsThe current study is a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, and convenience sample controlled clinical trial. The participants (age ≥ 18 years) had restorative need of Class I and/or II due to the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations in at least three dental elements. Each participant received three application protocols for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE), one in each tooth to be restored: ER = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n = 50); SEE = selective enamel etch + adhesive (n = 50) and SE = self-etch adhesive (n = 50). All teeth were restored in a similar way using Filtek™ Supreme composite resin (3M ESPE). Restorations were evaluated using the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, at baseline after 7 to 21 (12.02 ± 5.68) days (T1; n = 50 per group) and after 12 to 20 (15.8 ± 2.7) months (T2; n = 46 per group) by two previously calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.80). The statistical tests were performed between groups (Friedman), intragroup (Wilcoxon), and between the criteria considering acceptable and not acceptable restorations (McNemar), α = 0.05.
resultsA statistically significant difference was observed only for the property "superficial staining", between groups at T2 (p = 0.01) for ER (n = 13 with score 2 or more) and SEE (n = 3 with score 2 or more) and intragroup for ER (T1, n = 1 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 13 with score 2 or more, p = 0.001) and SE (T1, n = 0 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 8 with score 2 or more p = 0.007). For the other comparisons between groups, intragroup, and between the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, there were no statistically significant differences (p ≥ 0.05).
conclusionsIt can be concluded that the different application protocols of the universal adhesive resulted in clinically "acceptable" restorations after 15.8 ± 2.7 months of follow-up. Adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria provided similar results to each other.
trial registrationNumber in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-9p3hdp. Registered 24 May 2015.
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.