SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
Clinical performance of self-adhesive resin composite direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
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 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.
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pre-cure contact time and dentin surface roughness in modulating bonding and impregnation of self-adhesive composites to dentin.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Optimal nano-silica filler concentration to optimize kinetics, rheology and bonding of self-adhesive composites.Scientific reports · 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 systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical performance of direct restorations using conventional or bulk-fill resin composites (RC) with self-adhesive RCs in permanent teeth, regardless of cavity type or adhesive strategy employed. PICOS question was "Do direct restorations using self-adhesive RC exhibit clinical performance comparable to that of conventional or bulk-fill RCs?"
methodsSearch strategy was applied across Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, LILACS, The Cochrane Library, Base, Google Scholar, and OpenGray databases on January 17th, 2024 and updated on May 5th, 2025. Randomized clinical trials that evaluated the clinical performance of direct restorations with self-adhesive RC compared to conventional or bulk-fill RC in permanent teeth were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool. All analyses were performed using RevMan 5 with Risk Difference (RD) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Random-effects models and the Mantel-Haenszel method were applied.
results1206 articles were identified. 12 studies (15 reports) were included in qualitative and quantitative analyzes. A total of 356 participants aged 6 to 79 years received 794 restorations, of which 396 were performed with conventional or bulk-fill RCs and 398 with self-adhesive RCs. The follow-up period ranged from immediately after restoration (baseline) to 60 months. Meta-analyses revealed that no significant differences were found between the RCs across all the evaluated outcomes: marginal staining (P ≥ 0.13), color stability (P ≥ 0.27), fracture/retention (P ≥ 0.45), and marginal adaptation (P ≥ 0.08) regardless of the follow-up periods. For wear, postoperative sensitivity, and recurrence of caries, erosion, or abrasion, effects estimates were not possible. From 12 included studies, 6 of them showed a high overall risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was considered low or very low across all the evaluated criteria mainly due to imprecision and risk of bias.
conclusionThe low certainty of evidence suggests that self-adhesive RC direct restorations demonstrate clinical performance similar to conventional or bulk-fill RCs across all cavity types over a follow-up period of 6 to 48 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40627224What 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.