ArticleBDJ open2024
Performance of self-cured versus light-cured universal adhesive in patients with non-carious cervical lesions: 18-month randomized clinical trial.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. 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.
- Microleakage of Class II composite restorations bonded with universal adhesives containing different functional monomers: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Prediction of marginal adaptation failure in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions, based on machine learning.Brazilian oral research · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo evaluate the clinical performance of self versus light-cured universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 18 months. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty-eight NCCLs in 28 patients were divided into two equal groups; G1: self-cured universal adhesive (Palfique,Tokuyama,Japan) and G2: light-cured universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal,3 M ESPE,USA). Nanohybrid resin composite (Z350XT, 3 M ESPE, USA) was used as a final restoration. Evaluation for fracture, loss of retention, marginal adaptation and discoloration were done after 1 week, 6,12, and 18 months using FDI criteria. Postoperative sensitivity was assessed after 1 week. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests with statistical significance at (P ≤ 0.05) were used for intergroup comparison,while the intragroup one was performed using the Cochran's Q and Friedman's tests. Survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-meier and Log-rank test.
resultsBoth groups exhibited fracture and retention loss, however, there was statistically significant difference favoring the control group at 6 months (p = 0.0114,0.0016). For secondary outcomes, marginal adaptation and discoloration revealed no significant differences. For postoperative sensitivity, there was a significant difference favoring the control group (p = 0.0007, 0.0011). Palfique had 1.5 Relative-Risk (RR) after 6 months (95% CI 0.5659-4.2617; P = 0.3928) and 20% less risk of failure after 18 months (RR 0.8) (95% CI 0.4618-1.3858; P = 0.4260). Tested adhesives showed equal survival rate (P = 0.5685).
conclusionsBoth adhesives revealed similar clinical performance in restoring the NCCLs after 18 m, however, the early failure was more frequent in the self-cured universal adhesive.
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.