Trial reportThe journal of adhesive dentistry2022
Clinical Performance of a "No Wait" Universal Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Trial report in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- How laser etching affects the clinical performance of a "no-wait" universal adhesive: 36-month results.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Three-year Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Universal Adhesive Brands Functional Performance in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: 18- to 48-Months Systematic Clinical Report.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Composite Resin Bonded with Novel and Conventional Bonding Agents for Cost Effectiveness, Retention, and Secondary Caries: A Clinical Study.Journal of the West African College of SurgeonsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of a "no wait" universal adhesive with different application modes in comparison with an etch-and-rinsew and two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 234 non-carious cervical lesions in 34 patients were restored following 5 different adhesive approaches: 1. Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, self-etch mode (CUQ-SE); 2. Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, selective etch mode (CUQ-SLE); 3. Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, etch-and-rinse mode (CUQ-ER); 4. Clearfil SE Bond (self-etch adhesive) (CSEB); 5. Tetric N-Bond Universal, etch-and-rinse mode (TBU-ER). All NCCLs were restored with a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 24months of clinical service regarding retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, color match, surface texture using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.
resultsThe patient recall rate at 24 months was 73.5%. Eleven restorations, 6 of the CUQ-SE group, 4 of the CSEB group and 1 of the TBU-ER group, were clinically unacceptable due to retention loss. Regarding marginal adaptation and discoloration, CUQ-SE and CSEB groups exhibited higher bravo scores than other groups after 24 months (p < 0.05). At the end of 24-month examinations, no significant differences were detected among the groups regarding secondary caries, post-operative sensitivity, color match and surface texture.
conclusionThe clinical survival rates of the "no wait" universal adhesive at self-etch mode after 24 months were not acceptable. The "no wait" universal adhesive showed clinically acceptable performance in selective-etch and etch-and-rinse mode according to the evaluated USPHS criteria.
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.