ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2026
Comparison of Adhesive Strategies with Different Etching Approaches on the Clinical Performance of Restorations in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How laser etching affects the clinical performance of a "no-wait" universal adhesive: 36-month results.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) present restorative challenges due to substrate sclerosis and marginal stress concentration, making the adhesive strategy a key determinant of long-term performance. This systematic review and frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis, conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 and the PRISMA-NMA extension and prospectively registered in PROSPERO, compared restorative strategies defined by etching approach, adhesive category, and restorative material, with marginal adaptation and retention loss as the primary outcomes. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Scopus were searched without restrictions (25 January 2026), supplemented by alternative retrieval methods. Randomized clinical trials in permanent teeth evaluating at least two etching-based strategies (etch-and-rinse, self-etch, selective-etch, and/or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI)) were included. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and certainty of evidence with CINeMA. Seventy-four trials were eligible. Connected networks were established for marginal adaptation (57 studies; 28 interventions; 6798 patients; 1772 events) and retention loss (61 studies; 33 interventions; 7338 patients; 584 events). Selective-etch with a universal adhesive and nanocomposite reduced marginal adaptation failure compared with RMGI, whereas certain self-etch and non-universal combinations increased risk. For retention loss, selective-etch and etch-and-rinse protocols combined with universal adhesives and nanocomposites showed lower failure rates, while some self-etch or non-universal adhesive strategies performed less favorably. Overall confidence was predominantly high, with downgrading mainly due to imprecision and heterogeneity. Strategies incorporating selective enamel etching or etch-and-rinse approaches combined with universal adhesives and nanocomposites demonstrated the most consistent clinical advantages.
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.