Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Prospective, randomized, paired-comparison clinical trial of a new universal adhesive in posterior composite restorations: A 2-year evaluation.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Core Buildup Composite Resins Bond Strength to Dentin and Microhardness Using Universal Adhesives.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Micro-CT Assessment of Radiopacity and Intra-Cavity Distribution of Universal Adhesives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis prospective, randomized, post-market, paired-comparison controlled trial compared the 2-year clinical performance of a new universal adhesive, Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive (SBU+), with that of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU). Both were applied as self-etch (SE) adhesives for composite resin restoration of Class I and Class II preparations. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo posterior teeth in each of 51 subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to a restoration with SBU + or to a restoration with SBU (control) applied with the SE strategy. Class I and/or Class II preparations were restored with Filtek Universal Restorative. Two calibrated and blinded examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, using the modified FDI criteria. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the outcomes.
resultsAt the 2-year evaluation, retention was 100% for both the SBU + and SBU groups. Regarding fracture and retention, 36 of the 37 SBU+ restorations (97%) were graded “Clinically Excellent/Very Good,” while 1/37 (3%) was graded “Clinically Satisfactory.” All 38 SBU restorations (100%) were graded “Clinically Excellent/Very Good”. Marginal adaptation was clinically acceptable for all restorations at 2 years, with no statistically significant difference between the two adhesive materials. Furthermore, no recurrent caries lesions were observed at 2 years, and no restorations received a “Clinically Insufficient/Unsatisfactory” or “Clinically Poor” grade for any FDI criteria during any evaluation visit.
conclusionsAt 2 years, SBU+ exhibited clinical efficacy similar to its predecessor, SBU, in Class I and Class II restorations in adult patients when using the self-etch (SE) technique. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Mildly acidic universal dental adhesives may be used for posterior composite restorations without prior phosphoric acid etching.
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.