Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Clinical evaluation of different solvent type and HEMA-content of universal adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions: a two-year double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04707898 (Clinical Evaluation of Different Solvent-based Universal Adhesive Systems in Non-carious Cervical Lesions.), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 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.
Clinical Evaluation of Different Solvent-based Universal Adhesive Systems in Non-carious Cervical Lesions.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the Cytotoxic Effects of Adhesive Systems with Different pH Values on L929 Fibroblast Cells: An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- One-Year Clinical Performance of Injectable and Paste-Type Composite Resins in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Acid Etching: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
backgroundComparative analyses of different adhesive systems have illustrated that variations in the content can substantially influence the effectiveness of bonding. While in vitro studies provide essential insights, it is imperative that clinical recommendations derive from randomized clinical trials to ensure their reliability and validity. This double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial was conducted to assess the performance of various universal adhesives over a 24-month period, with a specific emphasis on monomer type, HEMA content, and solvent type, using the selective enamel etch approach in non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-two participants with two-hundred-fifty-six NCCLs were assigned to the two groups (n = 128): G-Premio Bond (GPB; GC) and Single Bond Universal (SBU; 3 M ESPE). The same composite resin (Essentia, GC) was used. Restorations were assessed at baseline, 12-month, and 24-month using the Revised FDI criteria by two blinded calibrated examiners. Statistical analysis included Fisher's Exact Chi-Square test, Continuity (Yates) Correction, and McNemar tests (p < 0.05).
resultsThe 24-month success rate was 98.2%, with the loss of retention in four restorations-two from SBU and two from GPB. Throughout all evaluation periods, no significant differences were identified between the adhesives regarding any criteria (p > 0.05). Both adhesives exhibited a significant decline in marginal adaptation at both the 12-month and 24-month evaluations, as well as an increase in marginal staining at the 24-month interval (p < 0.05). Notwithstanding the observed decrease in marginal adaptation after 24 months, all restorations remained clinically acceptable and were classified as clinically satisfactory.
conclusionsA clinical analysis over a 24-month period demonstrated that variations in the composition of universal adhesives-specifically concerning monomer types, HEMA content, and solvent type-did not significantly affect the performance of NCCL restorations. Notably, all retained restorations met clinical acceptability standards.
trial registrationThe clinical trial was registered on 13/01/2021 at https//clinicaltrials.gov with the ID (NCT04707898).
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.