ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2021
A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Performance of Two Resin Composite Materials in Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An Observational Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluating flexure properties, hardness, roughness and microleakage of high-strength injectable dental composite: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Mechanical and Biomimetic Characteristics of Bulk-Fill Resin Dental Composites Following Exposure in a Simulated Acidic Oral Environment.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with a universal adhesive, one-step and two-step self-etch adhesives in class I and II posterior cavities. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this
resultsSeven restorations, three SBU/FZXT, three GB/GP and one OBX/HU failed during this study. The reasons for failure were marginal fracture and secondary caries. SBU/FZXT restorations showed significant marginal deterioration in all parameters. Overall success rates were: 93.5% (SBU/FZXT), 96.6% (GB/GP) and 96.8% (OBX/HU).
conclusionsAfter three years, the three restorative systems have comparable clinical effectiveness and success rates, except for the marginal integrity, that was suboptimal for both the SBU/FZXT and GB/GP restorations in comparison to the OBX/HU restorations.
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.