Trial reportThe journal of adhesive dentistry2023
Fourteen-year Clinical Performance of a HEMA-free One-step Self-etch Adhesive in Non-carious Cervical Lesions.
Trial report in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2023. 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.
- Clinical evaluation of different solvent type and HEMA-content of universal adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions: a two-year double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the 14-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free 1-step self-etch adhesive (1SEa) compared with that of a 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (3E&Ra). MATERIALS AND
methods267 non-carious cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with the microhybrid composite Gradia Direct (GC), bonded in random order either with the HEMA-free 1SEa G-Bond (GB; GC) or the 3E&Ra Optibond FL (OFL; Kerr), which is considered the gold-standard E&Ra (control). The restorations were followed over 14 years for retention, marginal adaptation and discoloration, and caries occurrence. Statistical analysis involved a logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations (2-way GEE model).
resultsThe patient recall rate at 14 years was 63%. In total, 79 restorations (39 GB, 40 OFL) failed because of retention loss (GB: 19.4%, OFL: 19.6%), severe marginal defects, discoloration and/or caries (GB: 21.7%; OFL: 22.5%). The overall clinical success rate was 58.9% and 57.9% for GB and OFL, respectively. The number of restorations with an unacceptable marginal defect (GB: 14.5%; OFL: 19.2%) and deep marginal discoloration (GB: 18.2%; OFL: 13.2%) increased during the last 5 years. No significant difference in overall clinical performance was recorded between the two adhesives (p > 0.05). Changes in the medical health of some patients and recurrence of abrasion/erosion/abfraction increased the failure rate and retention rate.
conclusionAfter 14 years, restorations bonded with the HEMA-free 1SEa performed as well as those bonded with the 3E&Ra gold standard. Unacceptable marginal deterioration was the main reason for failure, followed by loss of retention.
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.