Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
How laser etching affects the clinical performance of a "no-wait" universal adhesive: 36-month results.
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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the 36-month clinical performance of a no-wait universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) according to etching method and application mode. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-one participants with at least five NCCLs received 215 restorations, which were randomly assigned to five groups according to five surface-conditioning and adhesive application protocols: Enamel and dentin etching with phosphoric acid (ED-A), selective enamel etching with phosphoric acid (SEE-A), self-etch (SE; control group), enamel and dentin etching with laser (ED-L), selective enamel etching with laser (SEE-L). Restorations were placed by a single operator using Clearfil Universal Bond Quick and Clearfil Majesty ES-2 and were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified USPHS criteria. Survival was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis with the log-rank test, and categorical outcomes were analyzed using Generalized Estimating Equations (GEE) (p < 0.05).
resultsThe 36-month recall rate was 97.5% (40 participants; 199 restorations). At 36 months, retention loss was greater in the ED-A group than in the SEE-A and SE groups and in the SEE-L group than in the SEE-A and SE groups (p = 0.036 for all comparisons). Marginal discoloration was greater in the SE group than in the ED-A and SEE-A groups (p = 0.022 and p = 0.004, respectively) and in the SEE-L group than in the SEE-A group (p = 0.014). Marginal adaptation was poorer in the SE group than in the ED-A, SEE-A, and ED-L groups (p = 0.001, p = 0.011, and p = 0.013, respectively). Marginal discoloration increased and marginal adaptation deteriorated significantly over time in all groups (p < 0.05).
conclusionsPhosphoric acid enamel etching provided the most favorable long-term marginal performance, whereas the SE and selective laser etching protocols showed less favorable marginal behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42803829What 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.