Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of universal bonding agents as desensitizers: in vitro and in vivo studies.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07197437 (Clinical Efficacy of Resin Based Coating Materials for Protecting Dental Root), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Efficacy of Resin Based Coating Materials for Protecting Dental Root
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDentin hypersensitivity (DH) is a highly challenging and persistent dental complaint. This study aimed to evaluate the in vitro durability of the universal dentin bonding agents Single Bond Universal (SBU) and OptiBond Universal compared with a specialized desensitizer, Hybrid Coat (HC), and to assess the desensitizing efficacy of SBU and HC in vivo over a 1-year follow-up period.
methodsDental root samples were prepared and treated with the three agents. After 24 h, 3 months, and 6 months, longitudinal sections of the root samples were examined under scanning electron microscopy, and adhesive layer thicknesses were measured. A split-mouth, blinded, randomized controlled trial was then conducted to compare the efficacy of SBU and HC for DH relief, using the visual analog scale (VAS). Assessments were performed at baseline, immediately post-application, and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months of follow-up, using standardized cold air stimulus protocols. The difference in VAS scores between pre- and post-application was used to measure efficacy.
resultsThe adhesive layer created by SBU was thinner than that created by HC; however, the HC layer degraded more rapidly. After 6 months of water aging, root surfaces in the HC group were exposed, whereas those in the SBU group remained covered. The in vivo study demonstrated that SBU provided desensitizing efficacy comparable to that of HC over the 12-month period.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of the present study, it can be concluded that the universal bonding agent SBU is effective and durable when applied as a desensitizer. Its efficacy is comparable to that of a dedicated desensitizing treatment.
trial registrationNCT07197437 ( https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ), Date of Registration: 15/09/2025. (Retrospectively registered).
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.