SUMMARY

The literature was reviewed to evaluate the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT ) and the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). RCTs were searched at Cochrane Library, PubMed, and other electronic databases to find studies about adhesive systems for cervical lesions. The compliance of the articles with CONSORT was evaluated using the following scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country, and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were left for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received scores of 0 or 1. Flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size were more critical items, with 80% receiving a score of 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among countries was observed (p<0.001), as well as range of year (p<0.001). Only 4.3% of the studies were judged as at low risk; 36.2% were classified as having unclear risk and 59.4% as having high risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating adhesive systems to the CONSORT is low with unclear/high risk of bias.

INTRODUCTION

Due to the development of adhesive systems, macro-mechanical retention is no longer essential. The use of adhesive systems allows good retention of restorative materials without the need for macro-mechanical retention. This might explain the rapid evolution and release of several commercial adhesive formulations. Etch-and-rinse adhesives, which require preliminary removal of the smear layer, are offered in two and three steps. Self-etch adhesives, capable of simultaneously demineralizing and infiltrating the dental substrates, are sold in one or two clinical steps. More recent and versatile systems, named as universal systems, can either be used in an etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode.

Despite the benefits that adhesive systems have made possible, clinicians are exposed to adhesives that use different bonding strategies with different levels of simplification. To make things more complicated, for each one of these combinations, a high number of commercial brands are available.

Laboratory testing is a very useful method for comparing the bonding performance of adhesive systems, but thus far, authors of few studies have found any correlation of their results with clinically important outcomes. On the other hand, clinical trials can provide reliable and direct evidence to guide clinicians to choose dental materials. The comparison of bonding techniques and adhesive systems is usually performed with noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs), as these lesions lack macro-mechanical retention and therefore restoration loss is due to ineffective bonding, which is an objective and clinically important outcome for adhesive efficacy.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the standard design for evaluation of health care interventions. Well-designed RCTs and systematic reviews of well-designed RCTs are on the top of the hierarchy of the levels of evidence. However, RCTs can yield biased results if they lack methodologic rigor.1 Problems with the design and execution of RCTs raise questions about the validity and reliability of their findings that can end up with an underestimation or overestimation of the true intervention effect.2,-4 

In this way, one should appraise the quality of RCTs before any clinical decision making. This assessment depends on a good reporting/writing of the methods and results sections of the RCTs. In an attempt to standardize the reporting, a group of experts joined together in 1996 and produced the CONSORT statement,5 which is a checklist with recommendations for reporting of clinical trials in biomedical literature. This CONSORT statement was revised in 2001,6 and the most recent one was published in 2010.7,8 

The compliance of RCTs with the CONSORT statement7,8 was evaluated in several specialties of medicine,9,10 as well as in some areas of dentistry, such as implantology, prosthodontics,11,12 periodontology,13 orthodontics,14,-16 and pediatric dentistry.17 Given the importance of RCTs in NCCLs for decision making during restorative procedures, the aim of this study was to systematically review the literature in peer-reviewed journals to evaluate 1) the compliance of recent RCTs with the CONSORT statement and 2) the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This study was not registered a priori as no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology of systematic reviews.

Search Methods

The following electronic databases were used to identify eligible studies: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) database, and the Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO). Citation databases such as Scopus and Web of Science (Table 1) were also searched. Additionally, the reference lists of all primary studies were searched for additional relevant publications, as well as the first page of the related articles' links to each primary study in the PubMed database. Articles in Japanese, Chinese, Arabian, and other Eastern languages were not included due to difficulties in the translation process.

Table 1

Search Strategy (16/04/16)

Search Strategy (16/04/16)
Search Strategy (16/04/16)

The search strategy was first prepared for the MEDLINE database by using controlled vocabulary (MeSH terms) and free keywords. Then, the search strategy was adapted to the other electronic and citation databases (Table 1). Only studies published in 1996 or later were included. This time period was chosen because the CONSORT statement was first published in 1996, and hence it would be unfair to expect that RCTs prior to this year would adhere to a standard that did not exist at the time of writing. Gray literature was not addressed because the study objective was to evaluate studies published in peer-reviewed journals.

Eligibility Criteria

Parallel and split-mouth RCTs that evaluated the performance of adhesive systems, restorative materials, or restorative and technique protocols in NCCLs of adult patients of any age group were included. RCTs should have at least two comparable groups, in which one of the groups was testing an adhesive system.

Articles could be excluded 1) if a clinical study did not perform a clinical evaluation, but rather was a laboratory evaluation; 2) if a study evaluated techniques for management of dentin hypersensitivity; 3) if there were conference abstracts, theses, or reports published in any media different from peer-reviewed journals; and 4) if studies were published earlier than 1996.

Initially, the articles were selected by title, and abstracts and duplicates were removed. Full-text articles were obtained, and subsequently, three reviewers (J.G., L.W., and A.R.) classified those that met the inclusion criteria.

Adherence to CONSORT Statement

An evaluation tool based on the items related to the methods and results from the 2010 CONSORT statement was developed7,8 to evaluate the reporting completeness of RCTs (Table 2). A total of 12 items of the CONSORT were included in this CONSORT evaluation tool. As some of these items were subdivided, a total of 16 items were evaluated. The given score per item ranged from 0 to 2. In other words, 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. More details about the scoring process are found in Table 2. Each item was given equal weighting.

Table 2

Instrument Tool Developed From the 2010 CONSORT Statement to Evaluate the Compliance of the Studies With the CONSORT Statement

Instrument Tool Developed From the 2010 CONSORT Statement to Evaluate the Compliance of the Studies With the CONSORT Statement
Instrument Tool Developed From the 2010 CONSORT Statement to Evaluate the Compliance of the Studies With the CONSORT Statement

Before evaluation, the instrument was discussed between two experienced authors in clinical trials (A.D.L. and A.R.), pilot tested in 20 articles, and checked for accuracy and reproducibility by two evaluators. This process yielded modification of the instrument tool, as new possibilities for each score were observed and discussed during pilot testing.

A single author (A.R.) performed the round of scoring using the CONSORT evaluation tool (Table 2), and only in case of doubt, a second author (A.D.L.) was contacted for discussion and final decision. Evaluators were not blinded to the study authors. This would not be possible as authors were familiar with the studies and could guess the researcher center by reading the paper.

Scoring System and Statistical Analysis

Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, and country were described. Compliance with individual items of the CONSORT statement was analyzed to determine what clinical researchers should improve in their description. To do this, the percentage of studies per score in each item was provided in a chart.

To achieve an overall compliance score per article, the scores of the 16 items were summed. A trial with complete adequate descriptions (score 2) in all CONSORT items would receive a maximum score of 32. An average score was calculated by period of time, journal, and country. Comparison within each factor was performed with the Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests at a level of confidence of 95%. Linear correlation analysis between 2015 International Scientific Index (ISI) journal impact factor and the average CONSORT score was also performed.

Risk of Bias in Individual Studies

Quality assessments were performed by two independent reviewers, using the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs.18 The assessment criteria contained six domains: sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of the outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data, selective outcome reporting, and other possible sources of bias.

For each aspect of the quality assessment, the risk of bias was scored following recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 5.1.0 (http://handbook.cochrane.org). At the study level, the study was considered at low risk of bias if all domains received the same judgment. If at least one domain was judged as at unclear risk, the study was considered as having unclear risk of bias. On the other hand, if at least one domain was judged at high risk of bias, then the study was also at high risk of bias. During data selection and quality assessment, disagreements between reviewers were solved through discussion.

RESULTS

Characteristics of the Included Studies

From a total of 2191 screened articles, 2031 were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria. The full texts of 160 papers were obtained and assessed, and 22 papers were excluded for the following reasons: 1) 10 studies were not RCTs; 2) four studies compared only glass ionomer cements; 3) two studies were duplicates; 4) one study performed replica rather than clinical evaluation; 5) one study was an abstract; 6) one study was in the Chinese language; 7) one study was performed in vitro; 8) one study was performed in class I and II restorations; and 9) one study evaluated only desensitizers. After these exclusions, 138 RCTs were left for final assessment (Figure 1).

Figure 1

PRISMA flowchart diagram showing the number of articles in the different phases of the study.

Figure 1

PRISMA flowchart diagram showing the number of articles in the different phases of the study.

The included RCTs investigated several issues. Study authors usually compared 1) patient-related (eg, dentin sclerosis) and operator-related factors (eg, clinical experience); 2) different adhesive systems for bonding and desensitization; 3) different restorative materials; 4) curing methods, and 5) composite-resin-based vs glass ionomer and/or resin-modified glass ionomer cements. In some studies, more than one of these variables were evaluated.

Table 3 displays the 138 RCTs tabulated by their collected characteristics. The journals contributing with the most RCTs were Operative Dentistry (17.4%), followed by American Journal of Dentistry (12.3%), Clinical Oral Investigations (10.1%), and Journal of Dentistry (10.1%). Approximately 26.9% of the publications were published in 16 different journals. The countries with most publications were Brazil (31.2%) and the United States (18.1%), representing together approximately 50% of all publications in the field. An increase in the number of articles is occurring over time, but unfortunately, more than half (62.3%) of the publications are of short-term duration (6 months to 2 years).

Table 3

Characteristics of the Included Studies by Categories

Characteristics of the Included Studies by Categories
Characteristics of the Included Studies by Categories

Study Compliance With Each of the CONSORT Instrument Tool Items

Figure 2 displays the percentage of studies in each item of the CONSORT Statement. Regarding the item numbers analyzed, losses/exclusions, eligibility criteria, and intervention, approximately 70% of the studies were scored as 2, meaning adequate reporting of these items.

Figure 2

Percentage of studies per CONSORT score for each CONSORT item analyzed.

Figure 2

Percentage of studies per CONSORT score for each CONSORT item analyzed.

In all other items, more than 30% of the studies received a score of 1 (poor reporting) or a score of 0 (no report). This was more critical in the item's protocol, flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size, where more than 80% of the studies were scored as 0 (no report).

Average CONSORT Score per Study Characteristics

The overall CONSORT score for the included studies in this review was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score of 32 points. No influence of the journal on the average CONSORT score was observed (p=0.198; Table 4). Correlation between journal impact factor and overall CONSORT score (r=0.089; p=0.93; Figure 3) was lacking. On the other hand, significant differences among countries were observed (p<0.001), with the average CONSORT score of Brazil being statistically higher than Egypt and Germany. Similarly, the range of year had a significant influence on the average CONSORT score. An increase in the average CONSORT score in recent years was observed (p<0.001; Table 4). In all other comparisons, no significant difference was detected. The individual CONSORT score for each of the included studies can be seen in Table 5.

Table 4

Average CONSORT Score per Journal, Country, and Period of Time

Average CONSORT Score per Journal, Country, and Period of Time
Average CONSORT Score per Journal, Country, and Period of Time
Figure 3

Dispersion chart showing the weak correlation between journal impact factor and the overall CONSORT score.

Figure 3

Dispersion chart showing the weak correlation between journal impact factor and the overall CONSORT score.

Table 5

List of the Scored Papers Along With Their Average CONSORT Score and Evaluation of the Risk of bias in Each Domain

List of the Scored Papers Along With Their Average CONSORT Score and Evaluation of the Risk of bias in Each Domain
List of the Scored Papers Along With Their Average CONSORT Score and Evaluation of the Risk of bias in Each Domain

Risk of Bias of the Included Studies

Except for the selective outcome reporting and incomplete outcome data, most of the studies were judged as unclear or at high risk of bias in the Cochrane Collaboration tool domains (Figure 4). For the new domain included by the review authors (experimental unit), the percentage of studies at high risk of bias was even higher than the other domains (Figure 4).

Figure 4

Methodologic risk of bias chart.

Figure 4

Methodologic risk of bias chart.

Table 5 reports the individual risk of bias in each domain for all included studies. This table allows the analysis of the risk of bias within studies. Only six included studies (4.3%) were judged to be at low risk of bias in all domains. Fifty studies had unclear risk of bias in at least one domain, resulting in 36.2% of the studies being classified as having unclear risk of bias. The remaining 82 studies were at high risk of bias in at least one domain, representing 59.4% of studies at high risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

A very comprehensive search was performed, including different electronic databases and using controlled vocabulary and keywords for each of the concepts of the search. However, one cannot deny that some articles might have been missed during the search process. It is likely, however, that missed articles represent a small percentage of the included studies and, if there are any, they are unlikely to change the results presented herein.

Study Compliance With the CONSORT

The reporting quality of RCTs of adhesive systems placed in the NCCLs was assessed using an instrument tool, which was elaborated based on the CONSORT statement.7,8 Different from earlier studies on the same topic,11,-13,15,-17 the items related to the title and abstract, introduction, and discussion were not evaluated because these items are very subjective, and the study adherence to these items does not weaken either the quality of the study or their risk of bias.

The CONSORT statement reports only the items that should be addressed, but the instrument herein developed allows each item of the CONSORT statement to be scored as either 0 (no report), 1 (poor reporting), or 2 (adequate reporting), based on the detailed descriptions of what should be observed in each item. This allowed a better reproducibility of the scoring process and may aid researchers to better understand what and how data should be described in future RCTs of the bonding area.

The present study observed that most of the included articles did not strictly follow the CONSORT statement. On average, a study compliance of only 46.9% with the evaluated CONSORT items was observed. An increased compliance with the CONSORT statement was observed in the last 6 years (mean CONSORT score of 17.9 ± 5.0; 49% compliance), a finding already observed by other authors.14,15 However, this increase is still trivial and substandard because it reached approximately a little more than half of the maximum CONSORT score of 32 points.

Compliance with the CONSORT statement has already been studied in other fields of dentistry. In the orthodontic area, studies reported a compliance of 41.5%,15 51.7%,14 and 68.9%.16 In the fields of prosthodontics and implant dentistry, a compliance of approximately 68% was observed.11 Variations within the same area are likely related to the inclusion criteria of the studies, mainly regarding their period of publication. Additionally, variations in the approach used to evaluate the CONSORT compliance can yield discrepancies in the results. However, regardless of these variations, one may see that even in the best situation the compliance was still low, indicating need of improvement.

It has already been reported that journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement might beneficially influence the completeness of RCTs reporting in medical journals10 and in orthodontic dentistry journals.15,19 Although some of the main journals that published studies of adhesives in NCCLs endorsed the CONSORT Statement (ie, Journal of the American Dental Association, Journal of Dentistry, and American Journal of Dentistry), a journal and its impact factor did not influence the average CONSORT score, neither in the present study nor in a systematic review in medicine.9 Sarkis-Onofre and others20 recently confirmed no correlation exists between journal endorsement of the CONSORT statement with improved completeness of RCTs reporting in restorative dentistry. Perhaps editors and editorial boards from these journals do not check the submitted articles against the CONSORT statement, which prevents the journals from reaching the expected benefits. More attention to these items during the peer-review process is required.

As reported in the results section, the item's sample size, allocation concealment, effect size, flow chart, and protocol were the aspects with poorest reporting. A priori sample size calculation prevents the publication of underpowered RCTs. In underpowered studies, negative findings do not necessarily mean the groups are not different from one another; it may be the result of sample size being too small to detect a “clinically important difference” among the groups.

A study should involve a sample size large enough to have a high probability (power) of detecting as statistically significant a clinically important difference of a given size, if such a difference exists. For such a purpose, and in superiority trials, authors should describe 1) the estimated outcomes in each group for the primary outcome(s) (ie, the clinically important difference between groups); 2) type I error; 3) power; and 4) for continuous outcomes, the standard deviation of the measurements.

In the present study, approximately 82% of the RCTs did not report sample size calculation at all. This is also problematic in the medical field. For instance, Chan and Altman21 reported that 73% of the 519 medical trials indexed in PubMed in December 2000 did not report sample size calculation. To make the scenario even worse, authors usually do not report the primary outcome for which the sample size calculation was performed. In this review, only 30% of the included RCTs reported the primary outcomes of the study clearly. Although, the United States Public Health Service evaluation22 and more recently the Fédération Dentaire Internationale criteria23 contain several criteria to be evaluated, in the case of RCTs about adhesive systems in NCCLs, retention rate should be regarded as a primary outcome and used for sample size calculation for being a true end point.

The reporting of the randomization process should include details about the methods used to generate the random sequence. In this review, it was observed that this item was reported inadequately, or it was not reported at all in 63.8% of the cases. In the fields of prosthodontics and implant dentistry, this figure was 44.3%.11 Usually, authors refer to terms such as “random allocation” or “the groups were randomized,” without further elaboration. Authors should specify the method of sequence generation (such as a random number table or a computerized random number generator, coin toss, and dice throwing), as well as restrictions to the process such as stratification and block randomization.

Allocation concealment seeks to prevent foreknowledge of the sequence generation before implementation, and it is as important as sequence generation to prevent selection bias. Allocation concealment can always be successfully implemented. It should not be confused with blinding, as blinding prevents performance and detection bias.24 Despite the importance of allocation concealment, one can observe in 89.1% of the cases that there was no description of this item at all. This is also in agreement with previous literature findings. An inadequacy of allocation concealment description was observed in 78% of the RCTs among dental journals25 and 93% in the specialty of periodontology.13 Another problem related to inadequately and unclearly concealed RCTs is that effect sizes are exaggerated in favor of the experimental group.4 

Blinding is also a key element in RCT reporting. In the present review, 70% of the RCTs performed poor or no reporting of blinding. During the execution of RCTs in NCCLs about adhesive systems or composite resins, operator blinding is quite impossible. However, patient and evaluator can still be blinded. If the primary outcome is retention rate, which is an objective parameter, lack of evaluator blindness does not put the study at high risk of bias, but for other subjective criteria such as marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, color match, and others, the lack of evaluator blinding puts the study at high risk of bias. Patient blinding is especially important when patient-centered subjective outcomes such as pain scores are collected, as they are more prone to bias. This is the case when different desensitizers are evaluated in NCCLs. In summary, blinding of the patients and the treatment providers may not always be possible; however, blinding of the evaluators and the analysts may.

One of the common failures during reporting of blinding is that authors usually report “this study was single-blind” or “this was a double-blind study,” without reporting who was blinded; this should be clearly stated in the RCTs. In agreement with these findings, Pandis and others25 reported that inadequate description of blinding in RCTs published in leading dental journals ranged from 74% to 100%. In implant dentistry, the lack of adequate blinding reporting was informed to be 58%.26 

Reporting of effect size and confidence intervals facilitates interpretation of important clinical differences. Hypothesis testing with p values and statistical significance is based on arbitrary cutoff points (ie, 0.05) and are sensitive to sample size and variance. By increasing sample size, very small and unimportant clinical differences may become statistically significant and may be erroneously interpreted as being “clinically” important.24 

In this study, 92.8% of the RCTs did not describe any effect size for at least the primary outcome. This is also a problem in medical journals.27 Authors should report an estimate of the treatment effect, which is a contrast between the outcomes in the comparison groups. For binary outcomes, the effect size could be the risk ratio (relative risk), odds ratio, or risk difference; for survival time data, it could be the hazard ratio or difference in median survival time; and for continuous data, it is usually the difference in means or standardized difference in means. Confidence intervals should be presented as they provide information about data precision.

The lack of description of effect sizes suggests that authors still rely on hypothesis testing for group comparisons. Researchers are advised to move away from significance tests to effect size reporting, delimited by confidence intervals. This method incorporates all the information normally included in a hypothesis but in a way that emphasizes the size of the difference (clinical significance rather than statistical significance).27,28 

The design and conduct of some RCTs may be not straightforward, particularly when there are losses to follow-up or exclusions. This prevents the description of the numbers of participants through each phase of the study in a few sentences. In complex studies, it may be challenging for readers to discern whether and why some participants did not receive the treatment as allocated or if they were lost to follow-up or were excluded from the analysis.29 This can be simply described by introducing a flow chart with the number of participants in each phase of the trial. Although the CONSORT Statement recommends the inclusion of a flow chart, only 13% of the RCTs herein evaluated followed this recommendation.

Another type of bias commonly faced in RCTs is selective outcome reporting. As pointed out in an editorial by de Angelis and others,30 researchers (and journal editors) are generally most enthusiastic about the publication of RCTs that show either a large effect of a new treatment (positive trials) or equivalence of two approaches to treatment (noninferiority trials). Less excitement is observed in RCTs that show that a new treatment is inferior to standard treatment (negative trials), and researchers show even less interest in RCTs that are neither clearly positive nor clearly negative because inconclusive RCTs will not, by themselves, encourage changing practices. Additionally, sponsored RCTs are likely to remain unpublished if the results of the RCTs place financial interests at risk.30 

To manage such problems, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposes comprehensive trials registration. Trials must register at or before the onset of patient enrollment.30 For the ICMJE, this policy applies to any clinical trial that started enrollment after July 1, 2005. However, only 4 of 110 included studies of this review published in 2005 or later performed trial registration (Table 5). Authors are advised to perform trial registry due to its advantages: 1) selective reporting can be avoided and if present, could be checked by comparing the published version of the paper with their registered protocol; and 2) it reduces publication bias, as studies with negative or inconclusive findings would be available for evaluation. Some dentistry journals such as Journal of Dentistry and Operative Dentistry have added this indication as mandatory in their instructions for authors.

Other items of CONSORT such as numbers analyzed, baseline data, losses and exclusions, outcomes, setting, and trial design deserves some discussion. Regarding numbers analyzed, the number of participants per group in all analyses should be clear in the study. Reporting summary statistics or only percentages, relative risks, or odds ratios is not enough as they do not allow readers to assess whether some of the randomly assigned participants were excluded from the analysis. The same should be applied to losses and exclusions. Along with the description of these figures per group, reasons for the losses and exclusions should be given as they may be related to the intervention. For instance, when a patient moves to another city, it is unlikely to be related to the intervention, but if a patient does not attend the recalls because he or she wants to be withdrawn from the trial, then the reason may be related to side effects or lack of efficacy of the treatments under evaluation.

Baseline information, adequately reported in only 20.3% of the papers, allows readers to check whether groups are comparable at baseline. Although proper random assignment prevents selection bias, it does not guarantee that the groups are equivalent at baseline. Any differences in baseline characteristics are, however, the result of chance rather than bias: the reason why there is no need to perform hypothesis testing for these characteristics. For instance, in the case of RCTs in NCCLs, the presence of occlusal wear facets is considered a predictive factor for restoration loss. The number of restorations placed in teeth with or without occlusal wear facets per group is therefore essential for baseline evaluation.31 

For all three of these items (numbers analyzed, losses and exclusions, and baseline characteristics), authors should be careful when presenting data. First, displaying percentages instead of raw numbers is risky. Rounded percentages may be compatible with more than one numerator and if authors fail to provide the number analyzed, then the denominator (total number of participants evaluated) will be unclear. For instance, 50% may represent five of 10 but also 500 of 1000. Second, merged data of groups can be provided as long as their individual values are also reported. Third, continuous variables should be presented as means and standard deviations (or standard errors) or medians and interquartile ranges (when not normally distributed); dichotomous variables in number of counts versus total number of observations.

The trial design involves the description of type of the trial (parallel, cross-over, factorial, split-mouth, and/or multiple restorations); the conceptual framework (superiority, noninferiority, or equivalence trial); and the allocation ratio (eg, 1:1 or 1:2). The setting (where and when the study was performed) is also essential to place a study in historical context and to evaluate its external validity (generalization of the findings to other populations).

Risk of Bias

Except for incomplete outcome data and selective reporting, which is not a major problem in the included articles of the present studies, in all other domains of the CCRT, RCTs were judged to have unclear or high risk of bias. The implications of inadequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, and examiner blinding were already discussed in detail.

We also added another domain in the CCRT for the analysis of the risk of bias, which is the experimental unit. The great majority of the authors placed multiple restorations per patient and considered each tooth as an experimental unit, without taking into consideration the clustered nature of the data. In these cases, authors applied conventional hypothesis testing statistics that assume that data are “independent.” Treating multiple observations from one participant as independent data is a serious error. Having this in mind, authors are advised to 1) place a single restoration per group in each patient in a paired design; 2) place more than one restoration per group in each patient, but only one value (median, mean, worst score, etc) per patient/group should be statistically analyzed; or 3) place multiple restorations per patient but use more advanced statistical models to account for the paired nature of the data.

In general, only 4.3% of the studies were considered at low risk of bias in this item. Most of the studies (59.4%) were at high risk of bias, and this affects the quality of the body of evidence produced thus far.

Although some journals have adopted the CONSORT guidelines in the instructions for authors, active compliance is yet to be achieved. Perhaps the inclusion of additional subheadings for RCTs, as suggested by Kloukos and others,11 could result in better compliance with the CONSORT statement. The results of the present study indicate that adherence of RCTs that evaluate adhesive systems in NCCLs to the CONSORT statement requires improvements. Adherence to the CONSORT statement will also reduce the high risk of bias of studies in the field.

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by CAPES and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under Grants 304104/2013-9 and 305588/2014-1.

Conflict of Interest Declaration

The authors of this manuscript certify that they have no proprietary, financial, or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service, and/or company that is presented in this article.

REFERENCES

1
Juni
P,
Altman
DG,
&
Egger
M
(
2001
)
Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
British Medical Journal
323
(
7303
)
42
-
46
.
2
Moher
D,
Pham
B,
Jones
A,
Cook
DJ,
Jadad
AR,
Moher
M,
Tugwell
P,
&
Klassen
TP
(
1998
)
Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses
Lancet
352
(
9128
)
609
-
613
.
3
Savovic
J,
Jones
H,
Altman
D,
Harris
R,
Juni
P,
Pildal
J,
Als-Nielsen
B,
Balk
E,
Gluud
C,
Gluud
L,
Ioannidis
J,
Schulz
K,
Beynon
R,
Welton
N,
Wood
L,
Moher
D,
Deeks
J,
&
Sterne
J
(
2012
)
Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies
Health Technology Assessment
16
(
35
)
1
-
82
.
4
Schulz
KF,
Chalmers
I,
Hayes
RJ,
&
Altman
DG
(
1995
)
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials
Journal of the American Medical Association
273
(
5
)
408
-
412
.
5
Begg
C,
Cho
M,
Eastwood
S,
Horton
R,
Moher
D,
Olkin
I,
Pitkin
R,
Rennie
D,
Schulz
KF,
Simel
D,
&
Stroup
DF
(
1996
)
Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement
Journal of the American Medical Association
276
(
8
)
637
-
639
.
6
Moher
D,
Schulz
KF,
Altman
D,
&
Group C
(
2001
)
The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials
Journal of the American Medical Association
285
(
15
)
1987
-
1991
.
7
Moher
D,
Hopewell
S,
Schulz
KF,
Montori
V,
Gotzsche
PC,
Devereaux
PJ,
Elbourne
D,
Egger
M,
Altman
DG,
&
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group
(
2010
)
CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
63
(
8
)
e1
-
e37
.
8
Schulz
KF,
Altman
DG,
Moher
D,
&
Group C
(
2010
)
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
Trials
11
(
32
)
1
-
8
.
9
Stevens
A,
Shamseer
L,
Weinstein
E,
Yazdi
F,
Turner
L,
Thielman
J,
Altman
DG,
Hirst
A,
Hoey
J,
Palepu
A,
Schulz
KF,
&
Moher
D
(
2014
)
Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review
British Medical Journal
348(g3804) 1-29.
10
Turner
L,
Shamseer
L,
Altman
DG,
Weeks
L,
Peters
J,
Kober
T,
Dias
S,
Schulz
KF,
Plint
AC,
&
Moher
D
(
2012
)
Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
11:MR000030.
11
Kloukos
D,
Papageorgiou
SN,
Doulis
I,
Petridis
H,
&
Pandis
N
(
2015
)
Reporting quality of randomised controlled trials published in prosthodontic and implantology journals
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
42
(
12
)
914
-
925
.
12
Papageorgiou
SN,
Kloukos
D,
Petridis
H,
&
Pandis
N
(
2015
)
An assessment of the risk of bias in randomized controlled trial reports published in prosthodontic and implant dentistry journals
International Journal of Prosthodontics
28
(
6
)
586
-
593
.
13
Montenegro
R,
Needleman
I,
Moles
D,
&
Tonetti
M
(
2002
)
Quality of RCTs in periodontology: a systematic review
Journal of Dental Research
81
(
12
)
866
-
870
.
14
Bearn
DR,
&
Alharbi
F
(
2015
)
Reporting of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature from 2008 to 2012: observational study of published reports in four major journals
Journal of Orthodontics
42
(
3
)
186
-
191
.
15
Flint
HE,
&
Harrison
JE
(
2010
)
How well do reports of clinical trials in the orthodontic literature comply with the CONSORT statement
Journal of Orthodontics
37
(
4
)
250
-
261
.
16
Lempesi
E,
Koletsi
D,
Fleming
PS,
&
Pandis
N
(
2014
)
The reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in orthodontics
Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice
14
(
2
)
46
-
52
.
17
Rajasekharan
S,
Vandenbulcke
J,
&
Martens
L
(
2015
)
An assessment of the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials published in paediatric dentistry journals
European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry
16
(
2
)
181
-
189
.
18
Higgins
JP,
Altman
DG,
Gotzsche
PC,
Juni
P,
Moher
D,
Oxman
AD,
Savovic
J,
Schulz
KF,
Weeks
L,
Sterne
JA,
Cochrane Bias Methods G
, &
Cochrane Statistical Methods Group
(
2011
)
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
British Medical Journal
343 (d5928) 1-9.
19
Pandis
N,
Shamseer
L,
Kokich
VG,
Fleming
PS,
&
Moher
D
(
2014
)
Active implementation strategy of CONSORT adherence by a dental specialty journal improved randomized clinical trial reporting
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
67
(
9
)
1044
-
1048
.
20
Sarkis-Onofre
R,
Poletto-Neto
V,
Cenci
MS,
Pereira-Cenci
T,
&
Moher
D
(
2017
)
Impact of the CONSORT Statement endorsement in the completeness of reporting of randomized clinical trials in restorative dentistry
Journal of Dentistry
58
(
1
)
54
-
59
.
21
Chan
AW,
&
Altman
DG
(
2005
)
Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals
Lancet
365
(
9465
)
1159
-
1162
.
22
Cvar
JF,
&
Ryge
G
(
2005
)
Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials 1971
Clinical Oral Investigations
9
(
4
)
215
-
232
.
23
Hickel
R,
Peschke
A,
Tyas
M,
Mjor
I,
Bayne
S,
Peters
M,
Hiller
KA,
Randall
R,
Vanherle
G,
&
Heintze
SD
(
2010
)
FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
12
(
4
)
259
-
272
.
24
Higgins
JP,
&
Green
S
(
2014
)
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Wiley-Blackwell
,
NJ, USA
.
25
Pandis
N,
Polychronopoulou
A,
&
Eliades
T
(
2010
)
An assessment of quality characteristics of randomised control trials published in dental journals
Journal of Dentistry
38
(
9
)
713
-
721
.
26
Cairo
F,
Sanz
I,
Matesanz
P,
Nieri
M,
&
Pagliaro
U
(
2012
)
Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
39
(
Supplement 12
)
81
-
107
.
27
Pocock
SJ,
Hughes
MD,
&
Lee
RJ
(
1987
)
Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals
New England Journal of Medicine
317
(
7
)
426
-
432
.
28
Borenstein
M
(
1997
)
Hypothesis testing and effect size estimation in clinical trials
Annals of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology
78
(
1
)
5
-
11;
quiz 12-16
.
29
Egger
M,
Juni
P,
Bartlett
C,
&
Group C
(
2001
)
Value of flow diagrams in reports of randomized controlled trials Journal of the American Medical Association 285(15) 1996-1999
.
30
De Angelis
C,
Drazen
JM,
Frizelle
FA,
Haug
C,
Hoey
J,
Horton
R,
Kotzin
S,
Laine
C,
Marusic
A,
Overbeke
AJ,
Schroeder
TV,
Sox
HC,
Van Der Weyden
MB,
&
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(
2004
)
Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
Lancet
364
(
9438
)
911
-
912
.
31
Oginni
AO,
&
Adeleke
AA
(
2014
)
Comparison of pattern of failure of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions with and without occlusal wear facets
Journal of Dentistry
42
(
7
)
824
-
830
.
32
Abdalla
AI
(
2008
)
Four-year clinical evaluation of a self-etch adhesive in class V carious lesions
International Journal of Clinical Dentistry
1
(
1
)
191
-
201
.
33
Abdalla
AI,
&
Garcia-Godoy
F
(
2007
)
Clinical performance of a self-etch adhesive in Class V restorations made with and without acid etching
Journal of Dentistry
35
(
7
)
558
-
563
.
34
Abdalla
AI,
&
Garcia-Godoy
F
(
2006
)
Clinical evaluation of self-etch adhesives in Class V non-carious lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
19
(
5
)
289
-
292
.
35
Adeleke
, &
Oginni
A
(
2012
)
Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of the West African College of Surgeons
2
(
4
)
21
-
37
.
36
Albuquerque
NL,
de Souza
AM,
de Moraes
MD,
Mendonca
JS,
Rodrigues
LK,
&
Santiago
SL
(
2016
)
Four-year randomized clinical trial of oxalic acid pretreatment in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
20
(
2
)
199
-
205
.
37
Alhadainy
HA,
&
Abdalla
AI
(
1996
)
2-year clinical evaluation of dentin bonding systems
.
American Journal of Denistry
9
(
2
)
77
-
79
.
38
Araujo
JF,
Barros
TA,
Braga
EM,
Loretto
SC,
Silva e Souza Pde
A
, &
Silva e Souza
MH
(
2013
)
One-year evaluation of a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique: a randomized clinical trial
Brazilian Dental Journal
24
(
3
)
267
-
272
.
39
Araujo
MS,
Souza
LC,
Apolonio
FM,
Barros
LO,
Reis
A,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Saboia
VP
(
2015
)
Two-year clinical evaluation of chlorhexidine incorporation in two-step self-etch adhesive
Journal of Dentistry
43
(
1
)
140
-
148
.
40
Aw
TC,
Lepe
X,
Johnson
GH,
&
Mancl
LA
(
2005
)
A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives
Journal of the American Dental Association
136
(
3
)
311
-
322
.
41
Baratieri
LN,
Canabarro
S,
Lopes
GC,
&
Ritter
AV
(
2003
)
Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of Class V composite restorations: three-year results
Operative Dentistry
28
(
5
)
482
-
487
.
42
Bittencourt
DD,
Ezecelevski
IG,
Reis
A,
Van Dijken
JWV,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2005
)
An 18-months' evaluation of self-etch and etch, & rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica
63
(
3
)
173
-
178
.
43
Blunck
U,
Knitter
K,
&
Jahn
KR
(
2007
)
Six-month clinical evaluation of XP BOND in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
9
(
Supplement 2
)
265
-
268
.
44
Boghosian
A
(
1996
)
Clinical evaluation of a filled adhesive system in Class 5 restorations
Compend Contin Educ Dent
17(8)
750-752
,
754
-
757
.
45
Brackett
MG,
Dib
A,
Franco
G,
Estrada
BE,
&
Brackett
WW
(
2010
)
Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions
Operative Dentistry
35
(
3
)
273
-
278
.
46
Brackett
MG,
Dib
A,
Brackett
WW,
Estrada
BE,
&
Reyes
AA
(
2002
)
One-year clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite restorative material in unprepared Class V restorations
Operative Dentistry
27
(
2
)
112
-
116
.
47
Brackett
WW,
Brackett
MG,
Dib
A,
Franco
G,
&
Estudillo
H
(
2005
)
Eighteen-month clinical performance of a self-etching primer in unprepared class V resin restorations
Operative Dentistry
30
(
4
)
424
-
429
.
48
Brackett
WW,
Dib
A,
Brackett
MG,
Reyes
AA,
&
Estrada
BE
(
2003
)
Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations
Operative Dentistry
28
(
5
)
477
-
481
.
49
Brackett
WW,
Covey
DA,
&
St Germain
HA,
Jr
(
2002
)
One-year clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in class V resin composites cured by two methods
Operative Dentistry
27
(
3
)
218
-
222
.
50
Burgess
JO,
Gallo
JR,
Ripps
AH,
Walker
RS,
&
Ireland
EJ
(
2004
)
Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall
American Journal of Dentistry
17
(
3
)
147
-
150
.
51
Burgess
JO,
Sadid-Zadeh
R,
Cakir
D,
&
Ramp
LC
(
2013
)
Clinical evaluation of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions: a two-year report
Operative Dentistry
38
(
5
)
477
-
487
.
52
Burrow
MF,
&
Tyas
MJ
(
2008
)
A clinical trial comparing two all-in-one adhesive systems used to restore non-carious cervical lesions: results at one year
Australian Dental Journal
53
(
3
)
235
-
238
.
53
Burrow
MF,
&
Tyas
MJ
(
2012
)
Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions: results at 3 years
Clinical Oral Investigations
16
(
4
)
1089
-
1094
.
54
Burrow
MF,
&
Tyas
MJ
(
2007
)
Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
32
(
1
)
11
-
15
.
55
Burrow
MF,
&
Tyas
MJ
(
1999
)
1-year clinical evaluation of one-step in non-carious cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
12
(
6
)
283
-
285
.
56
Can Say
E,
Ozel
E,
Yurdaguven
H,
&
Soyman
M
(
2014
)
Three-year clinical evaluation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching in non-carious cervical sclerotic lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
18
(
5
)
1427
-
1433
.
57
Can Say
E,
Yurdaguven
H,
Ozel
E,
&
Soyman
M
(
2014
)
A randomized five-year clinical study of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching
Dental Materials Journal
33
(
6
)
757
-
763
.
58
de Carvalho
LD,
Gondo
R,
&
Lopes
GC
(
2015
)
One-year clinical evaluation of resin composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions in smokers
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
17
(
5
)
405
-
411
.
59
Celik
EU,
Aka
B,
&
Yilmaz
F
(
2015
)
Six-month clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive flowable composite in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
17
(
4
)
361
-
368
.
60
Celik
C,
Ozgunaltay
G,
&
Attar
N
(
2007
)
Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-year results
Operative Dentistry
32
(
4
)
313
-
321
.
61
da Costa
TR,
Ferri
LD,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Reis
A
(
2014
)
Eighteen-month randomized clinical trial on the performance of two etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
27
(
6
)
312
-
317
.
62
Da Costa
TR,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Reis
A
(
2013
)
Effect of enamel bevel on the clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
25
(
5
)
346
-
356
.
63
Dalkilic
EE,
&
Omurlu
H
(
2012
)
Two-year clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Applied Oral Science
20
(
2
)
192
-
199
.
64
Dall'Orologio
GD,
&
Lorenzi
R
(
2014
)
Restorations in abrasion/erosion cervical lesions: 8-year results of a triple blind randomized controlled trial
American Journal of Dentistry
27
(
5
)
245
-
250
.
65
Daudt
E,
Lopes
GC,
&
Cardoso Vieira
LC
(
2013
)
Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
15
(
1
)
27
-
32
.
66
Dutra-Correa
M,
Saraceni
CH,
Ciaramicoli
MT,
Kiyan
VH,
&
Queiroz
CS
(
2013
)
Effect of chlorhexidine on the 18-month clinical performance of two adhesives
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
15
(
3
)
287
-
292
.
67
Ermis
RB,
van Landuyt
KL,
Cardoso
MV,
de Munck
J,
van Meerbeek
B,
&
Peumans
M
(
2012
)
Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years
Clinical Oral Investigations
16
(
3
)
889
-
897
.
68
Fagundes
TC,
Barata
TJ,
Bresciani
E,
Santiago
S,
Franco
EB,
Lauris
JR,
&
Navarro
MF
(
2014
)
Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
39
(
6
)
578
-
587
.
69
Farias
DC,
Lopes
GC,
&
Baratieri
LN
(
2015
)
Two-year clinical performance of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: influence of subject's age and dentin etching time
Clinical Oral Investigations
19
(
8
)
1867
-
1874
.
70
Farias
DCS,
Lopes
GC,
&
Baratieri
LN
(
2011
)
Desempenho clínico de restaurações com resina composta em lesões cervicais não cariosas
International Journal of Brazilian Dentistry
7
(
4
)
348
-
355
.
71
Faye
B,
Sarr
M,
Bane
K,
Aidara
AW,
Niang
SO,
&
Kane
AW
(
2015
)
One-year clinical evaluation of the bonding effectiveness of a one-step, self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesion therapy
International Journal of Dentistry
2015
(
984065
)
1
-
5
.
72
Federlin
M,
Thonemann
B,
Schmalz
G,
&
Urlinger
T
(
1998
)
Clinical evaluation of different adhesive systems for restoring teeth with erosion lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
2
(
2
)
58
-
66
.
73
Folwaczny
M,
Loher
C,
Mehl
A,
Kunzelmann
KH,
&
Hickel
R
(
2001
)
Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored materials: 3-year results
Clinical Oral Investigations
5
(
1
)
31
-
39
.
74
Folwaczny
M,
Mehl
A,
Kunzelmann
KH,
&
Hickel
R
(
2001
)
Clinical performance of a resin-modified glass-ionomer and a compomer in restoring non-carious cervical lesions: 5-year results
American Journal of Dentistry
14
(
3
)
153
-
156
.
75
Folwaczny
M,
Loher
C,
Mehl
A,
Kunzelmann
KH,
&
Hinkel
R
(
2000
)
Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24-month follow-up study
Operative Dentistry
25
(
4
)
251
-
258
.
76
Franco
EB,
Benetti
AR,
Ishikiriama
SK,
Santiago
SL,
Lauris
JR,
Jorge
MF,
&
Navarro
MF
(
2006
)
5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
31
(
4
)
403
-
408
.
77
Fron
H,
Vergnes
JN,
Moussally
C,
Cazier
S,
Simon
AL,
Chieze
JB,
Savard
G,
Tirlet
G,
&
Attal
JP
(
2011
)
Effectiveness of a new one-step self-etch adhesive in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 2-year results of a randomized controlled practice-based study
Dental Materials
27
(
3
)
304
-
312
.
78
Gallo
JR,
Burgess
JO,
Ripps
AH,
Walker
RS,
Ireland
EJ,
Mercante
DE,
&
Davidson
JM
(
2005
)
Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as class V filling materials
Operative Dentistry
30
(
3
)
275
-
281
.
79
Ghavamnasiri
M,
Ameri
H,
Chasteen
JE,
Mofrad
AH,
&
Hashemi
B
(
2012
)
Correlation between dental arch location and clinical success rate of total etch and self-etch adhesives in ClassV composite restorations
European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry
20
(
1
)
26
-
30
.
80
Häfer
M,
Jentsch
H,
Haak
R,
&
Schneider
H
(
2015
)
A three-year clinical evaluation of a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
43
(
3
)
350
-
361
.
81
Horsted-Bindslev
P,
Knudsen
J,
&
Baelum
V
(
1996
)
3-year clinical evaluation of modified Gluma adhesive systems in cervical abrasion/erosion lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
9
(
1
)
22
-
26
.
82
Karaman
E,
Yazici
AR,
Ozgunaltay
G,
&
Dayangac
B
(
2012
)
Clinical evaluation of a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
14
(
5
)
485
-
492
.
83
Kim
SY,
Lee
KW,
Seong
SR,
Lee
MA,
Lee
IB,
Son
HH,
Kim
HY,
Oh
MH,
&
Cho
BH
(
2009
)
Two-year clinical effectiveness of adhesives and retention form on resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions
.
Operative Dentistry
34
(
5
)
507
-
515
.
84
Kubo
S,
Yokota
H,
Yokota
H,
&
Hayashi
Y
(
2009
)
Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
37
(
2
)
149
-
155
.
85
Kubo
S,
Kawasaki
K,
Yokota
H,
&
Hayashi
Y
(
2006
)
Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
34
(
2
)
97
-
105
.
86
Kurokawa
H,
Miyazaki
M,
Takamizawa
T,
Rikuta
A,
Tsubota
K,
&
Uekusa
S
(
2007
)
One-year clinical evaluation of five single-step self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions
Dental Materials Journal
26
(
1
)
14
-
20
.
87
Lawson
NC,
Robles
A,
Fu
CC,
Lin
CP,
Sawlani
K,
&
Burgess
JO
(
2015
)
Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
43
(
10
)
1229
-
1234
.
88
Loguercio
AD,
de Paula
EA,
Hass
V,
Luque-Martinez
I,
Reis
A,
&
Perdigao
J
(
2015
)
A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial
Journal of Dentistry
43
(
9
)
1083
-
1092
.
89
Loguercio
AD,
Bittencourt
DD,
Baratieri
LN,
&
Reis
A
(
2007
)
A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of the American Dental Association
138
(
4
)
507
-
514
.
90
Loguercio
AD,
Manica
D,
Ferneda
F,
Zander-Grande
C,
Amaral
R,
Stanislawczuk
R,
de Carvalho
RM,
Manso
A,
&
Reis
A
(
2010
)
A randomized clinical evaluation of a one- and two-step self-etch adhesive over 24 months
Operative Dentistry
35
(
3
)
265
-
272
.
91
Loguercio
AD,
Raffo
J,
Bassani
F,
Balestrini
H,
Santo
D,
do Amaral
RC,
&
Reis
A
(
2011
)
24-month clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive applied using a rubbing motion
Clinical Oral Investigations
15
(
4
)
589
-
596
.
92
Loguercio
AD,
Luque-Martinez
I,
Lisboa
AH,
Higashi
C,
Queiroz
VA,
Rego
RO,
&
Reis
A
(
2015
)
Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients' preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
40
(
6
)
581
-
593
.
93
Loguercio
AD,
Costenaro
A,
Silveira
AP,
Ribeiro
NR,
Rossi
TR,
&
Reis
A
(
2006
)
A six-month clinical study of a self-etching and an etch-and-rinse adhesive applied as recommended and after doubling the number of adhesive coats
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
8
(
4
)
255
-
261
.
94
Loguercio
AD,
Zago
C,
Leal
K,
Ribeiro
NR,
&
Reis
A
(
2005
)
One-year clinical evaluation of a flowable resin liner associated with a microhybrid resin in noncarious cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
9
(
1
)
18
-
20
.
95
Loguercio
AD,
&
Reis
A
(
2008
)
Application of a dental adhesive using the self-etch and etch-and-rinse approaches: an 18-month clinical evaluation
Journal of the American Dental Association
139
(
1
)
53
-
61
.
96
Luque-Martinez
I,
Munoz
MA,
Mena-Serrano
A,
Hass
V,
Reis
A,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2015
)
Effect of EDTA conditioning on cervical restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive: a randomized double-blind clinical trial
Journal of Dentistry
43
(
9
)
1175
-
1183
.
97
Matis
BA,
Cochran
MJ,
Carlson
TJ,
Guba
C,
&
Eckert
GJ
(
2004
)
A three-year clinical evaluation of two dentin bonding agents
Journal of the American Dental Association
135
(
4
)
451
-
457
.
98
McCoy
RB,
Anderson
MH,
Lepe
X,
&
Johnson
GH
(
1998
)
Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention
Journal of the American Dental Association
129
(
5
)
593
-
599
.
99
Mena-Serrano
A,
Kose
C,
De Paula
EA,
Tay
LY,
Reis
A,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Perdigao
J
(
2013
)
A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
25
(
1
)
55
-
69
.
100
Merte
K,
Frohlich
M,
Hafer
M,
Hirsch
E,
Schneider
H,
&
Winkler
M
(
2000
)
Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on class V restorations
Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
53
(
1
)
93
-
99
.
101
Montagner
AF,
Perroni
AP,
Correa
MB,
Masotti
AS,
Pereira-Cenci
T,
&
Cenci
MS
(
2015
)
Effect of pre-treatment with chlorhexidine on the retention of restorations: a randomized controlled trial
Brazilian Dental Journal
26
(
3
)
234
-
241
.
102
Moosavi
H,
Kimyai
S,
Forghani
M,
&
Khodadadi
R
(
2013
)
The clinical effectiveness of various adhesive systems: an 18-month evaluation
Operative Dentistry
38
(
2
)
134
-
141
103
Moretto
SG,
Russo
EM,
Carvalho
RC,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
K,
Peumans
M,
Van Meerbeek
B,
&
Cardoso
MV
(
2013
)
3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
41
(
8
)
675
-
682
.
104
Mortazavi
V,
Samimi
P,
Rafizadeh
M,
&
Kazemi
S
(
2012
)
A randomized clinical trial evaluating the success rate of ethanol wet bonding technique and two adhesives
Dental Research Journal (Isfahan)
9
(
5
)
588
-
594
.
105
Neo
J,
Chew
CL,
Yap
A,
&
Sidhu
S
(
1996
)
Clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
9
(
1
)
15
-
18
.
106
Oliveira
FG,
Machado
LS,
Rocha
EP,
Alexandre
RS,
Briso
ALF,
Sundfeld
MLMM,
&
Sundfeld
RH
(
2012
)
Clinical evaluation of a composite resin and a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions: one-year results
International Journal of Clininical Dentistry
5
(
2
)
1
-
12
.
107
Onal
B,
&
Pamir
T
(
2005
)
The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of the American Dental Association
136
(
11
)
1547
-
1555
.
108
Ozel
E,
Say
EC,
Yurdaguven
H,
&
Soyman
M
(
2010
)
One-year clinical evaluation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique in cervical lesions
Australian Dental Journal
55
(
2
)
156
-
161
.
109
de Paula
EA,
Tay
LY,
Kose
C,
Mena-Serrano
A,
Reis
A,
Perdigao
J,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2015
)
Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in cervical lesions: 12-month results
International Journal of Esthetic Dentistry
10
(
1
)
122
-
145
.
110
Pena
CE,
Rodrigues
JA,
Ely
C,
Giannini
M,
&
Reis
AF
(
2016
)
Two-year randomized clinical trial of self-etching adhesives and selective enamel etching
Operative Dentistry
41
(
3
)
249
-
257
.
111
Perdigao
J,
Carmo
AR,
Anauate-Netto
C,
Amore
R,
Lewgoy
HR,
Cordeiro
HJ,
Dutra-Correa
M,
&
Castilhos
N
(
2005
)
Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months
American Journal of Dentistry
18
(
2
)
135
-
140
.
112
Perdigao
J,
Carmo
AR,
&
Geraldeli
S
(
2005
)
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
7
(
3
)
253
-
258
.
113
Perdigão
J,
Dutra-Corrêa
M,
Saraceni
CHC,
Ciaramicoli
MT,
Kiyan
VH,
&
Queiroz
CS
(
2012
)
Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results
Operative Dentistry
37
(
1
)
3
-
11
.
114
Perdigao
J,
Carmo
AR,
Geraldeli
S,
Dutra
HR,
&
Masuda
MS
(
2001
)
Six-month clinical evaluation of two dentin adhesives applied on dry vs moist dentin
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
3
(
4
)
343
-
352
.
115
Perdigao
J,
Kose
C,
Mena-Serrano
AP,
De Paula
EA,
Tay
LY,
Reis
A,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2014
)
A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation
Operative Dentistry
39
(
2
)
113
-
127
.
116
Perdigao
J,
Anauate-Netto
C,
Carmo
AR,
Lewgoy
HR,
Cordeiro
HJ,
Dutra-Correa
M,
Castilhos
N,
&
Amore
R
(
2004
)
Influence of acid etching and enamel beveling on the 6-month clinical performance of a self-etch dentin adhesive
Compendium in Continuing Educcation in Dentistry
25(1)
33-34
,
36
-
38
,
40 passim; quiz 46-37.
117
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
K,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2007
)
Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
9
(
1
)
7
-
10
.
118
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
K,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2015
)
Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions
Dental Materials
31
(
3
)
308
-
314
.
119
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
KL,
Kanumilli
P,
Yoshida
Y,
Inoue
S,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2007
)
Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites
Dental Materials
23
(
6
)
749
-
754
.
120
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
KL,
Poitevin
A,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2010
)
Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching
Dental Materials
26
(
12
)
1176
-
1184
.
121
Peumans
M,
Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
K,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2005
)
Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions
European Journal of Oral Sciences
113
(
6
)
512
-
518
.
122
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
KL,
Poitevin
A,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2012
)
A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
16
(
1
)
129
-
137
.
123
Pollington
S,
&
van Noort
R
(
2008
)
A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up
American Journal of Dentistry
21
(
1
)
49
-
52
.
124
Qin
W,
Song
Z,
Ye
YY,
&
Lin
ZM
(
2013
)
Two-year clinical evaluation of composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
17
(
3
)
799
-
804
.
125
Reis
A,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2006
)
A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
31
(
5
)
523
-
529
.
126
Reis
A,
Manica
D,
Ferneda
F,
Amaral
R,
Stanislawczuk
R,
Manso
A,
De Carvalho
RM,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2010
)
A 24-month randomized clinical trial of a two- and three-step etch-and-rinse technique
American Journal of Dentistry
23
(
4
)
231
-
236
.
127
Reis
A,
Leite
TM,
Matte
K,
Michels
R,
Amaral
RC,
Geraldeli
S,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2009
)
Improving clinical retention of one-step self-etching adhesive systems with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer
Journal of the American Dental Association
140
(
7
)
877
-
885
.
128
Reis
A,
&
Loguercio
AD
(
2009
)
A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
34
(
4
)
384
-
391
.
129
Ritter
AV,
Heymann
HO,
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
Sturdevant
JR,
&
Wilder
AD,
Jr
(
2008
)
Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis
Operative Dentistry
33
(
4
)
370
-
378
.
130
Ritter
AV,
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
Heymann
HO,
Sturdevant
JR,
&
Wilder
AD,
Jr
(
2009
)
An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives
Journal of the American Dental Association
140
(
1
)
28
-
37;
quiz 111-112
.
131
Saboia Vde
P,
Almeida
PC,
Rittet
AV,
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
&
Pimenta
LA
(
2006
)
2-year clinical evaluation of sodium hypochlorite treatment in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: a pilot study
Operative Dentistry
31
(
5
)
530
-
535
.
132
Sakrana
AA,
Tanoue
N,
Kawasaki
K,
&
Matsumura
H
(
2004
)
One-year clinical evaluation of two composite materials used for anterior class V restorations
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
31
(
10
)
985
-
990
.
133
Santiago
SL,
Passos
VF,
Vieira
AH,
Navarro
MF,
Lauris
JR,
&
Franco
EB
(
2010
)
Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions
Brazilian Dental Journal
21
(
3
)
229
-
234
.
134
Santiago
SL,
Franco
EB,
Mendonca
JS,
Lauris
JR,
&
Navarro
MF
(
2003
)
One-year clinical evaluation of tooth-colored materials in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Applied Oral Science
11
(
3
)
175
-
180
.
135
Sartori
N,
Lopes
GC,
&
Vieira
LC
(
2012
)
Clinical performance of cervical restorations with desensitizing agents: 18-month clinical trial
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
14
(
2
)
183
-
189
.
136
Sartori
N,
Peruchi
LD,
Guimaraes
JC,
Silva
SB,
Monteiro
S,
Jr.,
Baratieri
LN,
&
Belli
R
(
2013
)
Clinical effectiveness of a hydrophobic coating used in conjunction with a one-step self-etch adhesive: an 18-month evaluation
Operative Dentistry
38
(
3
)
249
-
257
.
137
Sartori
N,
Stolf
SC,
Silva
SB,
Lopes
GC,
&
Carrilho
M
(
2013
)
Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up
Journal of Dentistry
41
(
12
)
1188
-
1195
.
138
Schattenberg
A,
Werling
U,
Willershausen
B,
&
Ernst
CP
(
2008
)
Two-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etching adhesives in the restoration of cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
12
(
3
)
225
-
232
.
139
Scotti
N,
Comba
A,
Gambino
A,
Manzon
E,
Breschi
L,
Paolino
D,
Pasqualini
D,
&
Berutti
E
(
2016
)
Influence of operator experience on non-carious cervical lesion restorations: clinical evaluation with different adhesive systems
American Journal of Dentistry
29
(
1
)
33
-
38
.
140
Soderholm
KJ,
Ottenga
M,
&
Nimmo
S
(
2013
)
Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
26
(
1
)
28
-
32
.
141
de Souza
AM,
Colares
RC,
Mendonca
JS,
Rodrigues
LK,
&
Santiago
SL
(
2014
)
Effect of oxalic acid pre-treatment in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized clinical trial
Journal of Conservative Dentistry
17
(
5
)
427
-
431
.
142
Stojanac
IL,
Premovic
MT,
Ramie
BD,
Drobac
MR,
Stojsin
IM,
&
Petrovic
LM
(
2013
)
Noncarious cervical lesions restored with three different tooth-colored materials: two-year results
Operative Dentistry
38
(
1
)
12
-
20
.
143
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
Perdigao
J,
Heymann
HO,
Wilder
AD,
Jr.,
Bayne
SC,
May
KN,
Jr.,
Sturdevant
JR,
&
Roberson
TM
(
2001
)
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive
Journal of Dentistry
29
(
1
)
1
-
6
.
144
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
Perdigao
J,
Wilder
AD,
Jr.,
Heymann
HO,
Sturdevant
JR,
&
Bayne
SC
(
2001
)
Clinical evaluation of two one-bottle dentin adhesives at three years
Journal of the American Dental Association
132
(
8
)
1117
-
1123
.
145
Rocha Gomes Torres
C,
Barcellos
DC,
Batista
GR,
Pucci
CR,
Antunes
MJ,
de La Cruz
DB,
&
Borges
AB
(
2014
)
Five-year clinical performance of the dentine deproteinization technique in non-carious cervical lesions
Journal of Dentistry
42
(
7
)
816
-
823
.
146
Tuncer
D,
Yazici
AR,
Özgünaltay
G,
&
Dayangac
B
(
2013
)
Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results
Australian Dental Journal
58
(
1
)
94
-
100
.
147
Türkün
SL
(
2003
)
Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years
Journal of Dentistry
31
(
8
)
527
-
534
.
148
Türkün
LS
(
2005
)
The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at one year
Journal of the American Dental Association
136
(
5
)
656
-
664
.
149
Turkun
LS,
&
Celik
EU
(
2008
)
Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite: a two-year clinical trial
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
10
(
5
)
399
-
405
.
150
Tyas
MJ
(
1996
)
Clinical evaluation of five adhesive systems: three-year results
International Dental Journal
46
(
1
)
10
-
14
.
151
Tyas
MJ,
&
Burrow
MF
(
2002
)
Three-year clinical evaluation of One-Step in non-carious cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
15
(
5
)
309
-
311
.
152
van Dijken
JWV
(
2013
)
A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions
Dental Materials
.
29
(
11
)
E271
-
E280
.
153
van Dijken
JW,
Sunnegardh-Gronberg
K,
&
Sorensson
E
(
2007
)
Clinical bonding of a single-step self-etching adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
9
(
Supplement 2
)
241
-
243
.
154
Van Dijken
JWV
(
2004
)
Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical dentin lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
17
(
1
)
27
-
32
.
155
van Dijken
JWV
(
2010
)
A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions
Dental Materials
26
(
9
)
940
-
946
.
156
Van Dijken
JWV
(
2000
)
Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in class V non-carious lesions
Dental Materials
16
(
4
)
285
-
291
.
157
van Dijken
JW,
&
Pallesen
U
(
2012
)
A 7-year randomized prospective study of a one-step self-etching adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The effect of curing modes and restorative material
Journal of Dentistry
40
(
12
)
1060
-
1067
.
158
Van Landuyt
KL,
Peumans
M,
De Munck
J,
Cardoso
MV,
Ermis
B,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2011
)
Three-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions
European Journal of Oral Sciences
119
(
6
)
511
-
516
.
159
Van Landuyt
KL,
Peumans
M,
Fieuws
S,
De Munck
J,
Cardoso
MV,
Ermis
RB,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2008
)
A randomized controlled clinical trial of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year
Journal of Dentistry
36
(
10
)
847
-
855
.
160
Van Landuyt
KL,
De Munck
J,
Ermis
RB,
Peumans
M,
&
Van Meerbeek
B
(
2014
)
Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
18
(
4
)
1045
-
1052
.
161
Van Meerbeek
B,
Kanumilli
PV,
De Munck
J,
Van Landuyt
K,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Peumans
M
(
2004
)
A randomized, controlled trial evaluating the three-year clinical effectiveness of two etch, & rinse adhesives in cervical lesions
Operative Dentistry
29
(
4
)
376
-
385
.
162
Van Meerbeek
B,
Peumans
M,
Gladys
S,
Braem
M,
Lambrechts
P,
&
Vanherle
G
(
1996
)
Three-year clinical effectiveness of four total-etch dentinal adhesive systems in cervical lesions
Quintessence International
27
(
11
)
775
-
784
.
163
Wilder
AD,
Jr.,
Swift
EJ,
Jr.,
Heymann
HO,
Ritter
AV,
Sturdevant
JR,
&
Bayne
SC
(
2009
)
A 12-year clinical evaluation of a three-step dentin adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions
Journal of the American Dental Association
140
(
5
)
526
-
535
.
164
Yaman
BC,
Dogruer
I,
Gumustas
B,
&
Efes
BG
(
2014
)
Three-year randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions
Clinical Oral Investigations
18
(
4
)
1071
-
1079
.
165
Yazici
AR,
Celik
C,
Ozgunaltay
G,
&
Dayangac
B
(
2010
)
The effects of different light-curing units on the clinical performance of nanofilled composite resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: 3-year follow-up
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
12
(
3
)
231
-
236
.
166
Zander-Grande
C,
Ferreira
SQ,
da Costa
TR,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Reis
A
(
2011
)
Application of etch-and-rinse adhesives on dry and rewet dentin under rubbing action: a 24-month clinical evaluation
Journal of the American Dental Association
142
(
7
)
828
-
835
.
167
Zander-Grande
C,
Amaral
RC,
Loguercio
AD,
Barroso
LP,
&
Reis
A
(
2014
)
Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial
Operative Dentistry
39
(
3
)
228
-
238
.
168
Zhou
Z,
Yu
S,
Jiang
Y,
Lin
Y,
Xiong
Y,
&
Ni
L
(
2009
)
A randomized, controlled clinical trial of one-step self-etching adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions
American Journal of Dentistry
22
(
4
)
235
-
240
.