The effectiveness of a universal adhesive applied in different application modes for the preparation of Class V composite restorations was evaluated both clinically and by quantitative marginal analysis (QMA). In each of the 22 patients, four non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) were restored with Filtek™ Supreme XTE (3M). The adhesive Scotchbond™ Universal (SBU, 3M) was applied in self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etch (SEE) or etch-and-rinse (ER) modes. The etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond™ FL (OFL, Kerr) served as a control. The restorations were clinically evaluated (FDI criteria) after 14 days (BL), 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Additionally, QMA was conducted on all restorations of 11 randomly selected patients. The FDI criteria and margina...
A 2-year randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step...
Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L...
Background: To answer the PICOS question: “Is the risk of retention loss equal for SEE and SE approa...
Objective: To evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives applied with different ...
This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the pe...
The objective of this multi-centric, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the cli...
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of universal adhes...
Objective: The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the pe...
Purpose: The objective of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the six-month...
Objective: To answer the following PICOS question: “Is the risk of retention loss, marginal discolor...
Purpose: This randomized, controlled study evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of two flowable...
This 13-year randomized clinical trial compared the clinical effectiveness of two three-step etch-an...
The aim of this systematic review it's to provide a critical evaluation about universal adhesives to...
Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the pe...
Objective: To assess the clinical performance of four adhesive strategies; 3-step etch-and-rinse Adp...
A 2-year randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step...
Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L...
Background: To answer the PICOS question: “Is the risk of retention loss equal for SEE and SE approa...
Objective: To evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives applied with different ...
This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the pe...
The objective of this multi-centric, double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the cli...
ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of universal adhes...
Objective: The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the pe...
Purpose: The objective of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the six-month...
Objective: To answer the following PICOS question: “Is the risk of retention loss, marginal discolor...
Purpose: This randomized, controlled study evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of two flowable...
This 13-year randomized clinical trial compared the clinical effectiveness of two three-step etch-an...
The aim of this systematic review it's to provide a critical evaluation about universal adhesives to...
Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the pe...
Objective: To assess the clinical performance of four adhesive strategies; 3-step etch-and-rinse Adp...
A 2-year randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step...
Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical performance of three self-etching adhesives (Adper Prompt L...
Background: To answer the PICOS question: “Is the risk of retention loss equal for SEE and SE approa...