Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical performance of the ethanol-wet bonding technique with different adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesion restorations: a 6-year randomized clinical trial.
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. 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
objectivesThis randomized clinical trial evaluated the six-year clinical performance of the ethanol-wet bonding technique (EWBT) combined with different adhesive protocols in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). The research question was whether EWBT improves long-term restoration retention compared with conventional water-wet bonding. MATERIAL AND
methodsPatients presenting at least one NCCL, regardless of lesion etiology (abrasion, erosion, abfraction, or mixed), were included. A total of 148 NCCLs were randomized at the restoration level into four groups: [NE] water-wet bonding with a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose, 3M ESPE); [EMP] EWBT + Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (3M ESPE); [EB] EWBT + hydrophobic bonding resin (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Bond, 3M ESPE); and [EU] EWBT + universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal, 3M ESPE). EWBT consisted of applying 100% ethanol actively for 60 s to dentin prior to adhesive application. All restorations were placed using a nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 6, 18 months and after six years using modified USPHS criteria. The unit of analysis was the restoration. Intergroup comparisons at each time point were performed using Fisher's exact test, and survival analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier estimates and log-rank tests (α = 0.05).
resultsAfter six years, 42 patients (108 restorations) were clinically evaluated (72.9% recall), while all 148 restorations were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Survival rates were 88.9% (NE), 81.1% (EU), 77.8% (EMP), and 48.7% (EB). The EB group showed significantly lower survival than all other groups (log-rank, p = 0.008). No significant differences were observed among the hydrophilic protocols (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe effectiveness of EWBT is influenced by the hydrophilicity of the adhesive system. Hydrophilic adhesives showed stable long-term performance regardless of ethanol pretreatment, whereas the use of EWBT with a purely hydrophobic bonding resin resulted in significantly reduced retention. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: EWBT does not improve longevity when used with hydrophilic adhesives but may compromise performance when associated with simplified hydrophobic bonding strategies.
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.