Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2021
Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- How laser etching affects the clinical performance of a "no-wait" universal adhesive: 36-month results.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Randomized Clinical Trial of Four Adhesion Strategies in Non-Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations: Five-Year Follow-Up.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Long-term clinical comparison of a resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.Odontology · 2025Trial
- Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Assessing the effect of dentin pre-treatment techniques on the longevity of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions (NCCLs) restorations: A scoping review.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Universal Adhesive Brands Functional Performance in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: 18- to 48-Months Systematic Clinical Report.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Ion-Releasing Restorations versus Composite Restorations in Dental Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- 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
- 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
- Prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions and orthodontic treatment: a retrospective study.Progress in orthodontics · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) restored with different adhesion strategies. METHODOLOGY: This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study. An adhesive restorative system (Single Bond Universal/Filtek Z350XT - SBU) was evaluated both without and with selective enamel conditioning (E-SBU), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Vitremer; RMGIC), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid pretreatment (EDTA; E-RMGIC). In total, 200 restorations, placed in 50 patients, were evaluated at baseline and at a 3-year follow-up using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analyzed using the two-proportion equality test, multinomial logistic regression, Wilcoxon test, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.
resultsIn total, 42 (84%) patients returned for the 3-year follow-up. SBU showed restoration losses statistically different from RMGIC. Retention was also statistically different in SBU between baseline and the 3-year follow-up. Marginal defects and surface texture were statistically significant for all groups in the period studied, except for the surface texture of SBU and the marginal integrity in E-RMGIC. We observed no statistically significant difference in wear, secondary caries, anatomical form, surface staining, and color over time. Recession degree was the only factor to influence retention rates. Cumulative survival (%) was 89, 98, 98, and 95.3, for SBU, SE-SBU, RMGIC, and E-RMGIC, respectively, without significant differences among them. There was a statistically significant difference between survival curves; however, multiple comparison procedures found no statistical differences.
conclusionSelective enamel etching affected the retention of non-carious cervical restorations. Adhesion using EDTA and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements delayed marginal defects over time. The degree of gingival recession influenced retention rates. Resin composite restorations showed initial marginal defects, and ionomer restorations, reduced surface luster. EDTA pre-treatment followed by resin-modified glass-ionomer cements may be a promising adhesion strategy for NCCL 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.