SynthesisClinical oral investigations2023
Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations bonded with universal adhesive system using three different application modes: a 26-month randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Trial
- A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Trial
- Influence of Academic Training and Professional Experience on the Management of Deep Caries Lesions.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair. MATERIALS AND
methodsPubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.
resultsTwenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.
conclusionsThe type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.
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.