Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Prospective, randomized clinical trial evaluating the clinical performance of a new universal adhesive in Class I and Class II restorations at 1 year.
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. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Commercial trends in universal adhesive evolution: updated formulations do not consistently improve dentin bond strength after aging compared with predecessors and a multistep reference.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Truly Universal Dental Cements vs. Conventional Ones-Comparison of Mechanical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis randomized controlled trial compared the 1-year clinical efficacy of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive Plus (SBU+) with that of its predecessor Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU) to restore Class I and Class II preparations using the self-etch strategy in adult patients. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-one subjects participated in this study. Two posterior teeth in each subject were randomized to a restoration with SBU+ or to a restoration with SBU (control) using the self-etch strategy. Teeth were restored with Filtek Universal Restorative. Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 months and 1 year using the FDI criteria. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare outcomes.
resultsNo restorations were graded as "Insufficient/Unsatisfactory" or "Poor" for any of the FDI criteria at the baseline, 6-month, or 1-year visits. At 1 year the retention rate was 100% for both SBU+ and SBU. For fracture of the restorative material 42/44 SBU+ restorations (95%) and 44/44 SBU restorations (100%) were graded "Excellent/Very Good" (p > 0.05). All restorations were clinically acceptable for marginal adaptation at 1 year with no statistical differences between the two adhesive materials. There were no recurrent caries lesions at the 1-year visit.
conclusionsThe clinical efficacy of the SBU+ at 1-year was not different to that of its predecessor SBU in Class I and Class II restorations of adult patients using the self-etch strategy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The two dental adhesives used in this clinical trial showed excellent results in posterior restorations at 1 year without using a separate phosphoric etching step.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39739062What 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.