Trial reportDental research journal2021
The effect of ethanol wet bonding technique on postoperative hypersensitivity of Class II composite restorations: A randomized trial.
Trial report in Dental research journal, 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 the ethanol-wet bonding technique with different adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesion restorations: a 6-year randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Article
- Wet-bonding technique with ethanol may reduce protease activity in dentin-resin interface following application of universal adhesive system.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
5 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo evaluate the effect of Ethanol Wet Bonding Technique (EWBT) on postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) of composite restorations in premolar teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized trial, 24 patients with at least three proximal carious lesions with similar axial depth and position of gingival floor in their premolars were enrolled. Following cavity preparation, the teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Class II resin-based composite (RBC) restoration using an etch-and-rinse adhesive + wet bonding technique (Control); (2) RBC restoration using EWBT + hydrophobic adhesive; and (3) RBC restoration using EWBT + hydrophilic adhesive. Tooth hypersensitivity was evaluated before and 1, 3, 7, 14 and 30 days after treatment according to the Visual Analog Scale. Data were analyzed statistically with Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests (
resultsAll teeth showed similar levels of hypersensitivity after treatment (both
conclusionApplication of ethanol-wet bonding technique, either with hydrophobic or hydrophilic adhesives did not affect the POH of Class II composite restorations in premolars.
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.