ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Two-step and One-step Self-etching Adhesive Systems and Self-etching Self-adhesive Composite in Permanent Molars in Pediatric Patients: A Three-arm Parallel Randomized Clinical Study.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The most prevalent disease that affects people is dental caries. The illness needs to be restored after it has been cavitated. Over the past few decades, dental adhesives that are used to adhere composite resins to tooth structure have changed. Composites were created to satisfy the needs of long-lasting, esthetically pleasing restorative materials. The micromechanical interlocking between the resin and enamel's hydroxyapatite caused the bonding process. Bonding to enamel has developed into a dependable process throughout time. Bonding to dentin, on the other hand, has shown less consistency. Dental adhesive systems have changed throughout the course of multiple generations to address these issues, with modifications to their chemistry, mechanism, bottle count, application methods, and clinical efficacy. Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive strategies-two-step self-etching adhesive system (group I: Clearfil SE Bond), one-step self-etching adhesive system (group II: Xeno V), and self-etching self-adhesive composite (group III: Constic)-in the restoration of class I cavitated lesions [International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS) score 5] in permanent molars of pediatric patients. Materials and methods: A total of 45 permanent molars with ICDAS score 5 lesions were randomly selected in children aged 9-16 years. The teeth were randomly assigned to three groups ( Results: All three adhesive strategies demonstrated good clinical performance after 6 months. Group III (Constic) exhibited comparable outcomes to group I (Clearfil SE Bond) and group II (Xeno V) in terms of anatomic form, retention, absence of secondary caries, marginal discoloration, and postoperative sensitivity. Group II and group III showed similar results for marginal adaptation, while group I exhibited significantly poorer marginal adaptation at the 6-month recall. Overall, group III provided effective clinical results with the added benefits of reduced chair time and improved patient comfort. Conclusion: Self-etching self-adhesive composite (Constic) showed promising clinical performance comparable to traditional adhesive systems, with the added advantages of simplified application and patient-friendly handling. These results support its use in pediatric restorative dentistry, although longer-term clinical trials are recommended to further validate its efficacy. How to cite this article: Pruthi T, Pandit IK, Gugnani N,
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.