Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Clinical evaluation of single bond universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month retrospective study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06227715 (Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Restorations Using Different Modes of Universal Adhesive), which is not on this 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.
Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Restorations Using Different Modes of Universal Adhesive
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of universal bonding agents as desensitizers: in vitro and in vivo studies.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effects of chemical surface treatments on the shear bond strength between polyetheretherketone and veneering composite resin: An in vitro study.Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society · 2026Article
- Lesion Morphology Modification Is Unnecessary for Non-carious Cervical Lesion Restorations: A Comparison of Stiff and Flowable Composites.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Bond strength in class V cavities: an in vitro study on beveling, universal adhesive strategy, and composite type.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
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 36-month clinical performance of Single Bond Universal Adhesive (SBU; 3M ESPE, Germany) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using different modes of adhesion according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome was the retention loss of the restorations, while the secondary outcomes included marginal staining, marginal adaptation, post-operative sensitivity and tooth vitality, recurrence of caries erosion and abfraction, and tooth integrity, all evaluated according to the FDI criteria. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this study, the SBU Adhesive was applied to 246 NCCLs of 25 patients using different modes of adhesion: Self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etching (SLE), and etch-and-rinse (ER). All lesions were restored with the same nanohybrid resin composite. The restorations were evaluated at the 1st, the 6th, 12th, 18th, and 36th month using the FDI criteria. The differences between SE, SLE, and ER groups were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests where a value of p < 0.05 was accepted as a criterion for statistical significance.
resultsAfter 36-month the recall rate was 96%. The retention loss rates were 29.33% for SE, 16.66% for SLE, and 3.89% for ER modes. Interactions between time periods and adhesive modes were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all FDI criteria. ER mode performed significantly better than SE mode for marginal staining, marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, erosion and abfraction criteria after the 36th month (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between SE and SLE mode (p > 0.05), nor between SLE and ER mode (p > 0.05).
conclusionsAfter the 36-month evaluation of all adhesive modes used in the study, restorations performed with the ER adhesion mode were clinically good (2), while those performed with the SE adhesion mode and SLE adhesion mode were clinically satisfactory (3) according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome, retention loss, was significantly lower in the ER mode compared to SE and SLE modes. For secondary outcomes, the ER mode showed better performance in marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and the recurrence of caries, erosion, and abfraction highlighting its clinical advantages for mid-term success in non-carious cervical lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Restorations performed with the SE adhesion mode of universal adhesives exhibit clinically acceptable behavior after 36 months of evaluation, although with less success than those performed with the ER adhesion mode. CLINICAL
trial registrationClinical trials number- NCT06227715, Clinical trials link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06227715.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39731636What 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.