SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021
Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Is the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth similar if restored with incremental or bulk-filling techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Randomized Clinical Trial of Four Adhesion Strategies in Non-Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations: Five-Year Follow-Up.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Clinical Performance of a "No Wait" Universal Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2022Trial
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Universal Adhesive Brands Functional Performance in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: 18- to 48-Months Systematic Clinical Report.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Clinical Management of Cervical Restorations with Closing Gap Technique: A Follow-Up of Two Cases.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Prediction of marginal adaptation failure in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions, based on machine learning.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
- How do network meta-analyses address intransitivity when assessing certainty of evidence: a systematic survey.BMJ open · 2023Article
- Introspection of the Etiopathological Mechanisms Underlying Noncarious Cervical Lesions: Analysis of the Different Theories and Their Impact on the Mineralized Structures of the Tooth.International journal of dentistry · 2023Review
- Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- Marginal Adaptation of Flowable vs Sonically Activated or Preheated Resin Composites in Cervical Lesions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesive Systems Containing HEMA and 10-MDP Monomers: Bond Strength of Adhesives Containing HEMA and 10-MDP.International journal of dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess which adhesive strategy is most clinically effective in treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIAL AND
methodsStudies were identified by a systematic search of electronic databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Scopus, and Web of Science without restrictions on publication year or language. The grey literature was also consulted. Only randomized clinical trials that compared different adhesive strategies in NCCLs in adult patients were included. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model was used to compare adhesive strategies (3ER, 2ER, 2SE, and 1SE) at different follow-up times. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated for each strategy. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the Cochran Q test and I
resultsA total of 5058 studies were identified, 66 of which met the eligibility criteria and of these 5 were judged "low" risk of bias and 57 were meta-analyzed. We did not observe significant differences in the NMA analysis for any two pairs of adhesives, except for the shortest follow-up for 2ER vs 3ER. The material 2SE ranked highest, although it differed only slightly from the other bonding strategies.
conclusionsNo bonding strategy is better than the others. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Adhesive efficacy cannot be characterized by its bonding strategy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33661448What 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.