Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40560221›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025

Comparative clinical performance of universal adhesives versus etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: a meta-analysis.

Matheus Polesso Patias, Paula Fernandes-E-Silva, Neftali Lenin Villareal Carreño, Rafael Guerra Lund, Evandro Piva, Adriana Fernandes da Silva, Wellington Luiz De Oliveira Da Rosa

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Matheus Polesso PatiasGraduated Student in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Paula Fernandes-E-SilvaGraduated Student in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Neftali Lenin Villareal CarreñoGraduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering, Technology Development Center, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
Rafael Guerra LundDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil.
Evandro PivaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil.
Adriana Fernandes da SilvaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil.
Wellington Luiz De Oliveira Da RosaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua Gonçalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil. darosa.wlo@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the clinical performance of universal adhesives (UA) in different modes in direct dental resin composite restorations compared to control self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A literature search was performed in five databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane) until August 2024. Only RCTs that compared retention, marginal staining, and postoperative sensitivity of different forms of application of UA with etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesives were included. The meta-analysis was performed using the Revman software (Cochrane Collaboration, UK), and this review was preregistered with the PROSPERO (CRD42022314408).

resultsA total of 15 RCTs were included, with a follow-up varied from 6 months to 4 years. In the global analysis, considering three outcomes, UA were statistically similar to control adhesives (etch-and-rinse and self-etch) regardless of the mode of application (ER, SE or EE), with a risk difference of -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02; p = 0.43; I

conclusionUniversal adhesives had similar clinical performance to conventional ER and SE adhesives. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Universal adhesives provide clinical performance comparable to conventional etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives, offering a simplified and effective option for adhesive procedures.

Indexed as

Acid Etching, DentalComposite ResinsDental CementsDental Restoration, PermanentResin CementsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicComposite ResinsDental CementsResin CementsAdhesive strategyClinical retentionDirect resin composite restorationMarginal stainingPostoperative sensitivityResin composite

Identifiers

PMID40560221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.