ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
The clinical success of repaired posterior composite restorations with and without silane application.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The effect of different treatment protocols on shear bond strength in resin composite restoration repair.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Clinical survival of No-prep indirect composite laminate veneers: a 7-year prospective case series study.BMC oral health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical success of posterior composite restorations repaired with and without silane application for up to 2 years. MATERIALS AND
methodIn this retrospective study, patient record files acquired from the 40 patients who were treated due to needing repair for two class II defective composite restorations and visited the clinical practice for regular check-up visits were used. In the experimental group, the defective restorations were repaired using a silane coupling agent (Porcelain Primer), a universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond), and a microhybrid resin composite (Charisma Smart). In the control group, the restorations were repaired using the universal adhesive and the resin composite without silane coupling agent application. The repaired restorations were blindly assessed by two calibrated examiners using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 6 months, 1, and 2 years. The data were analyzed using non-parametric tests (p = 0.05).
resultsAfter 2 years, 80 repaired class II restorations were evaluated. No restoration of either the control or silane-treated group failed. After 2 years, there were no statistically significant differences between the experimental and control groups (p > 0.05). The differences in surface roughness were observed in each group over time (p < 0.05). There were no variations in other criteria over time (p > 0.05).
conclusionThere was no significant effect of the silane coupling agent on restoration repair survival. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The repair of localized defects of the posterior composite restorations either with or without silane application is a conservative treatment option that may increase the clinical success of these restorations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35527299What 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.