ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2021
Morphological analysis and immunohistochemical expression in restorations with self-adhesive resin: A randomized split-mouth design-controlled study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of self-adhesive resin composite direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Influence of the self-adhering strategy on microhardness, sorption, solubility, color stability, and cytotoxicity compared to bulk-fill and conventional resin composites.Clinical oral investigations · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the morphology and immunohistochemical expression of MMP-9, TIMP-3, COL-I, TNF-alfa and COX-2 in the dentinopulp complex of restorations with self adhesive composite (Vertise Flow/Kerr) compared with conventional resin composite with self-etching adhesive (Filtek Z250/3M ESPE and Clearfil SE Bond/Kuraray-Noritake). MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized, controlled, double-blind, split-mouth, two-arm clinical trial was conducted. Twenty-seven volunteers with third molars indicated for extraction received two deep class I restorations, one with each material. The morphology and immunohistochemical expression were measured at 15 days after the restorative procesures. The data were submitted to the Fisher`s Exct test (α=0.05).
resultsThrough morphological analysis, a slight disorganization of the odontoblastic layer was visualized, along with a slight inflammatory infiltrate in the VERT and CSEB groups (
conclusionsSelf-adhesive resin composite and conventional resin composite with a self-etching bonding agent promoted slight alterations in the dentin-pulp complex, indicating a repair ability and reversibility of the inflammatory process against aggressions of the adhesive restorative procedure.
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.