Trial reportScientific reports2024
Comparison of postoperative hypersensitivity between Total-etch and Universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- 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
- Prospective Quasi-Experimental Study of Postoperative Pain Following Class II Composite Restorations Using the Snow-Plow and Resin-Coating Techniques.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective was to determine the postoperative hypersensitivity of two-step Total-etch as compared to one-step Universal adhesives followed by composite restorations on 100 patients by applying Total-etch on one tooth and Universal adhesive on another tooth. The bonds and teeth were randomly selected. Postoperative hypersensitivity was recorded by visual analog scale before, immediately after, and 24 h after the restoration using cold stimulus. The Mann-Whitney test was applied for statistical comparison of postoperative hypersensitivity between the two bonds as well as for any significant difference in genders with each bond. No significant difference was found between postoperative hypersensitivity of the two adhesives before (p-value = 0.57), immediately after (p-value = 0.604), and 24 h after (p-value = 0.728) the restoration. Males showed more hypersensitivity with Total-etch as compared to females before (p-value = 0.037), immediately after (p-value = 0.047), and 24 h after the restoration (p-value = 0.022). No significant difference was found between gender and Universal adhesive at all three stages (p-value > 0.05). The results suggest no significant difference in postoperative hypersensitivity between the two materials when good sample size and proper technique were observed along with the removal of bias like different patients having different pain perceptions and multiple operators having different operating skills. Males showed more hypersensitivity to Total-etch.Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials. Registry number: ACTRN12622001213730. (Retrospectively registered: 09/09/2022).
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.