Trial reportClinical and experimental dental research2020
Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions-Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?
Trial report in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fourteen-year Clinical Performance of a HEMA-free One-step Self-etch Adhesive in Non-carious Cervical Lesions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of a novel restorative protocol to treat non-carious cervical lesion associated with gingival recession: a 2-year follow-up randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions-Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Trial
- One-Year Clinical Performance of Injectable and Paste-Type Composite Resins in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Acid Etching: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Lesion Morphology Modification Is Unnecessary for Non-carious Cervical Lesion Restorations: A Comparison of Stiff and Flowable Composites.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Clinical Management of Cervical Restorations with Closing Gap Technique: A Follow-Up of Two Cases.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bond strength in class V cavities: an in vitro study on beveling, universal adhesive strategy, and composite type.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
- Effect of Pre-Procedural Antiseptic Mouthwash On The Dentin Bond Strength of Dental Adhesives.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- Prediction of marginal adaptation failure in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions, based on machine learning.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- Does different application modes of universal adhesives with universal resin composites affect the microleakage in class V cavities? An in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- In Vitro Bond Strength of Dentin Treated with Sodium Hypochlorite: Effects of Antioxidant Solutions.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: anRestorative dentistry & endodontics · 2023Article
- 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
- Stereomicroscopic Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Influence of carbonated acid beverage on fracture resistance and marginal gap formation in different restorative approaches to non-carious cervical lesions.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Morphological and Optical Coherence Tomography Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Clinical Outcomes and Quantitative Margin Analysis of a Universal Adhesive Using a Randomized Clinical Trial over Three Years.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this in-vivo study was to evaluate the clinical performance of restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using different cavity preparation designs, after 7.7 years. A total of 85 NCCLs with coronal margins in enamel and cervical margins in dentin were randomly assigned to the following treatment protocols: dentin surface cleaning, dentin surface roughening with round bur plus flowable composite, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur, dentin surface roughening/cervical groove preparation with round bur plus flowable composite. After enamel beveling and selective enamel etching, the defects were restored with composite. The restorations were assessed by two independent, calibrated and blinded investigators, using modified USPHS criteria. At 7 years (7.7 (± 0.35)), a total of 64 restorations (75.3%) were available for follow-up examination. The total retention rate, irrespective of the test groups, was 82.8%. Restorations placed without any preparation showed the highest loss rate (27.8%). Esthetic appearance, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and marginal discoloration did not differ significantly between the groups. Composites are long-term stable materials for restoring NCCLs. Restorations placed without any dentin preparation (cavity cleaning only) showed the highest loss rate.
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.