ArticleJournal of the West African College of Surgeons
Comparative Evaluation of Composite Resin Bonded with Novel and Conventional Bonding Agents for Cost Effectiveness, Retention, and Secondary Caries: A Clinical Study.
Article in Journal of the West African College of Surgeons. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Restoring aesthetics in primary teeth presents a significant challenge for dentists due to factors such as thin enamel, unique pulpal anatomy, and the small size of these teeth. Discolouration, malformation, extensive caries, or damage from trauma in primary teeth often raise considerable concerns for both patients and their parents. Composite resin has become one of the most popular and reliable tooth-colour restorative materials, offering excellent aesthetic outcomes. Aim: To evaluate the cost effectiveness, retention, and secondary caries of universal adhesive Tetric N-Bond Vivapen and conventional adhesives followed by the composite restorations. Materials and Methods: Two dental adhesive products was used: conventional adhesive and Tetric N-Bond universal Vivapen. The study included 30 children who required composite restoration and were divided into two groups. Group 1 was treated with conventional adhesive and Group 2 with Tetric N-bond. After treatment, the cost-effectiveness was assessed immediately, and children were followed-up after 12 months for the evaluation of retention and secondary caries. Results: The study showed that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is more cost-effective than conventional adhesive. Group 2 experienced significantly better outcomes for both retention of restoration (100% vs. 53.8%, Conclusion: The study concludes that Tetric N-Bond Universal Vivapen is cost-effective, provides better retention, and reduces secondary caries compared to conventional adhesives, making it more durable for composite restorations in dental treatment.
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.