Trial reportThe journal of adhesive dentistry2025
Randomized Clinical Trial of Four Adhesion Strategies in Non-Carious Cervical Lesion Restorations: Five-Year Follow-Up.
Trial report in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several adhesion strategies have been proposed for restoring non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Long-term clinical trials are essential to guide clinicians toward the most effective approach. PURPOSE: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of NCCLs restored using different adhesion strategies. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour strategies were assessed: an adhesive system (Scotchbond Universal; SBU/Filtek Z350XT) applied without (SBU) and with selective enamel conditioning (E-SBU), and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer; RMGIC) applied without (RMGIC) and with ethylene-diaminetetraacetic acid pretreatment (E-RMGIC). Two hundred restorations were evaluated using United States Public Health Service criteria after 5 years. Kappa test, Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test, Kaplan-Meier analysis, equality tests of two proportions, and multiple logistic regression were applied (α = 0.05).
resultsOne hundred and nineteen restorations were re-evaluated after 5 years. No significant differences were observed in restoration survival among groups. E-SBU exhibited more Bravo scores for marginal integrity compared to the ionomer groups and for marginal discoloration compared to RMGIC. Ionomer groups had higher Bravo scores for surface texture. RMGIC showed greater wear than E-SBU, being statistically similar to SBU. No significant differences were found for color and secondary caries over time. Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that restoration retention was significantly influenced by the type of tooth (premolars), the degree of dentin sclerosis, and the degree of marginal tissue recession.
conclusionsAll four adhesion strategies demonstrated similar 5-year survival. Marginal defects were more frequent in the selective enamel etching group than in ionomeric restorations. Surface luster was reduced in ionomer restorations. The retention of NCCL restorations may be affected by tooth type, degree of dentin sclerosis, and marginal tissue recession. The four adhesion strategies had similar survival after 5 years; however, composite resin restorations applied after selective enamel etching promote more initial marginal defects than ionomer-based restorations following the manufacturer's instructions. Clinical factors such as lesion location, dentin sclerosis, and gingival recession can influence the retention of NCCL restorations.
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.