Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33468122›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2021

Scoping review of trials evaluating adhesive strategies in pediatric dentistry: where do simplified strategies lie?

António H S Delgado, Hasan Jamal, Anne Young, Paul Ashley

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Three-Year Practice-Based Clinical Trial on the Performance of a Self-Adhesive Resin-Based Bulk-Fill Restorative.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
    Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. 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.] · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

António H S DelgadoDepartment of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Royal Free Hospital, UCL Medical School, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Rowland Hill Street, Hampstead, London, NW3 2PF, UK. antonio.delgado.17@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7902-6104
Hasan JamalUnit of Paediatric Dentistry, Department of Craniofacial Growth and Development, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
Anne YoungDepartment of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Royal Free Hospital, UCL Medical School, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Rowland Hill Street, Hampstead, London, NW3 2PF, UK.
Paul AshleyDepartment of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, Royal Free Hospital, UCL Medical School, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, Rowland Hill Street, Hampstead, London, NW3 2PF, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_15037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAdhesive restorations allow a conservative approach to caries management and are increasingly used as a restorative option in pediatric dentistry. Placement can be difficult in children because of the cooperation required for multiple bonding steps. Due to this, it is vital to assess if novel, simpler strategies have been featured in clinical trials and if clinical trials are researching the different existing adhesive strategies.

methodsThis review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis adapted for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Central, Scopus and EMBASE were used for systematic search, using free keywords and controlled search terms. Clinical trials of children requiring a restorative intervention which featured adhesive strategies were included. Only peer-reviewed trials of primary teeth restored with resin composites, published in the last 10-year period were eligible. Data charting was accomplished independently by two reviewers, and studies were summarized according to their date, type, intervention, sample size, observation period, outcomes and conclusions. Quality assessment was performed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias 2.0 tool.

results700 potentially relevant references were found, which after a rigorous inclusion scheme, resulted in a total of 8 eligible clinical trials. Out of these, 7 were randomized clinical trials. Most trials featured a split-mouth design and the observation period ranged from 12 to 36 months. The trials evaluated interventions of two self-adhesive composites, two bulk-fill composites, two novel composites, one compomer and eight adhesives from different strategies. Most studies (4/8) included were judged to raise some concerns regarding risk of bias, while two were classified as high risk and two as low.

conclusionFew studies comparing adhesive strategies were found, especially adhesives in sound substrates. The existing studies do not reflect all current approaches that could be used in pediatric dentistry. Further studies addressing bioactive composites and contemporary adhesives are necessary.

Indexed as

Dental CariesPediatric DentistryChildComposite ResinsDental CementsHumansTooth, DeciduousComposite ResinsDental CementsAdhesiveChildrenDental adhesiveEvidence-based dentistryPediatric dentistryRestorative dentistry

Identifiers

PMID33468122
PMCPMC7816513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.