ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Clinical performance of different composite materials in class II cavities bonded with universal adhesives.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of universal adhesives used in different etching modes on dentin bond strength: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- The role of etching protocols on bond strength of universal adhesives applied to caries affected dentin: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Pooled it
- Prospective, randomized, paired-comparison clinical trial of a new universal adhesive in posterior composite restorations: A 2-year evaluation.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- 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
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Influence of Etching Protocols on the Bonding Stability of Universal Adhesives to Dentin.Polymers · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Two Resin Composite Materials in Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An Observational Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of the double-application of one-step universal adhesives on bonding strength to bur-cut enamel.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Clinical performance of different composite materials in class II cavities bonded with universal adhesives.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the clinical performance of two composite materials with two universal adhesives and a two-step self-etch adhesive on class II restorations for 18 months. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred and fifty-two class II cavities were bonded with G-Premio Bond, Single Bond Universal, and Clearfil SE Bond 2. A nanohybrid composite (Filtek Z550 Universal) or a microhybrid composite (G-aenial Posterior) was used to fill the bonded cavities. World Dental Federation criteria were used to evaluate the restorations at 1 week, 6, and 18 months. Statistical analysis was performed using Friedman and Fisher's exact tests (α = 0.05).
resultsRetention loss and fracture were not observed in any restorations during the 18 months. The adhesives used showed no significant differences for all criteria examined (p > 0.05) regardless of composite material. After an 18-month follow-up, seven G-aenial Posterior and three Filtek Z550 Universal restorations presented slight marginal discrepancies, with no significant differences (p = 0.246). At 1 week, Filtek Z550 Universal (9.5%) led to significantly higher postoperative sensitivity compared with G-aenial Posterior (0.8%) (p = 0.001).
conclusionsUniversal adhesives showed similar clinical performance to Clearfil SE Bond 2. The restorations with Filtek Z550 Universal had a relatively higher risk of postoperative sensitivity. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Universal adhesives were clinically successful for 18 months. At 1 week, the type of composite material used significantly affected the occurrence of postoperative sensitivity.
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.