human
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 5-year clinical performance of a self-etching primer system including selective enamel-etching with phosphoric acid and a one-bottle adhesive system . METHODS Seventy-two non-carious cervical lesions in 8 patients ( 4 male and 4 female ) with a mean age of 61.3 years ( range 45 - 78 ) participated in the study . An enamel bevel was placed and dentin lightly ground , and cavities restored with clearfil liner bond II ( LB ) or single bond ( SB ) in conjunction with a hybrid resin composite ( Clearfil AP-X ) . In the case of 27 cavities for LB , the enamel was pretreated with 37 % phosphoric acid for 10 s. Each patient received both types of restoration , which were distributed on a r and om basis . All restorations ( 37 restorations for LB and 35 restorations for SB ) were placed by one dentist . The restorations were evaluated blind after 5 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS All but one restoration ( which was replaced by a crown after the 2-year recall ) were evaluated after 5 years . 100 % retention rates were recorded for both restorative groups . No caries was detected in association with any restorations . The only minor problem was marginal discoloration ; superficial and localized marginal discoloration occurred around 18 % of the restorations , and mainly at the dentin margin . There were no significant differences in the marginal integrity between the LB and SB groups . CONCLUSIONS Restorative material s used in this study demonstrated a good clinical effectiveness in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions for 5 years PURPOSE To study the clinical performance of two c and i date s for improvement of the original Gluma bonding system . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Eight teeth with cervical buccal abrasion/erosion lesions were identified in 40 patients . The lesions were conditioned with an oxalic acid solution followed by either a HEMA-glutaraldehyde bonding agent or a formamide-containing bonding agent . The lesions were restored with a hybrid composite . Each patient received the same number of restorations with the two different bonding formulations . All restorations were made by the same operator ( JK ) . Evaluations were based on the USPHS system . RESULTS No difference between the two groups as to retention , marginal adaptation and discoloration was observed after 3 years . Eight restorations were lost and a slight increase in marginal discoloration was seen during the observation period BACKGROUND A new restorative called a " giomer composite " has been introduced . The authors conducted a study to determine retention , anatomical form , caries , staining , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer  compared with those of a microfilled composite . METHODS The authors placed 40 sets of restorations r and omly in canines and premolars in vivo . They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments . They placed the restorations according to manufacturer 's recommendations , and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six , 18 and 36 months . The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present , the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type . RESULTS There were no differences in the restorations at baseline , an evaluation made two weeks after placement . At 36 months , the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated . The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period . CONCLUSIONS Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Material s established by the American Dental Association . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions PURPOSE To compare the clinical performance of a resin composite and a polyacid-modified resin composite ( compomer ) in non-carious cervical lesions using a one-step self-etch adhesive . METHODS Thirty patients , each with two non-carious cervical lesions ( 60 restorations ) , received one composite ( Pertac-II ) restoration and one compomer ( Hytac ) restoration , both used in conjunction with a self-etch adhesive ( Prompt L-Pop ) and placed following the manufacturer 's instructions . Evaluations were at baseline , 6 , 12 and 36 months after placement for retention , margin adaptation , marginal discoloration , anatomic form , secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity . Statistical analysis with the Pearson Chi-square test was undertaken . RESULTS Retention rates were 86.6 % for composite and 86.7 % for compomer at 36 months . 3.3 % of composite and 6.7 % of compomer restorations showed a deficiency in marginal adaptation . Both material s showed a slight marginal discoloration of 7.7 % . More deterioration in anatomic form occurred with the compomer ( 11.5 % ) than the composite ( 3.8 % ) . None of the restorations exhibited secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity problems . There was no significant difference in performance between the material s in any of the categories evaluated Three restorative material s used for cervical erosion /abrasion lesions were evaluated clinical ly after 10 years . Thirty adult patients with at least four cervical lesions received one restoration of each of Ketac-Fil , finished immediately , Ketac-Fil , finished after a delay , Chelon-FIl ( all glass-ionomer cements ) , and Cervident ( a resin composite ) . Restorations were placed without any tooth preparations . Eighteen patients returned for their 10-year examinations . Two experienced examiners provided the periodic evaluations . Complete retention at 10 years was 83 % for Ketac-Fil , finished immediately ; 78 % for Ketac-Fil , finished after a delay ; 67 % for Chelon-Fil ; and 17 % for Cervident . All three glass-ionomer restorative material s exhibited statistically significantly greater retention that did Cervident . When a noninvasive procedure is desired , glass-ionomer material s are the restorative material of choice for abrasion/erosion lesions because of their long-term retention values One hundred non-carious , non-undercut cervical lesions were restored with Silux Plus or Estio LC and bonded with Fuji Bond LC . The restorations were evaluated yearly for retention and marginal discoloration . After five years , the overall retention rate was 96 % . Of the 41 restorations examined at five years , five had clinical ly evident marginal discoloration OBJECTIVES This r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of a hybrid ( Clearfil AP-X ; AP ) and a flowable ( Clearfil Flow FX ; FX ) resin composite in 98 non-carious cervical lesions . METHODS Twenty-two patients , 11 males and 11 females ( mean age : 61.9 years , range : 29 - 78 years ) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital , participated in the study . Each patient received both material s r and omly . All restorations ( 48 restorations for AP and 50 restorations for FX ) were placed in conjunction with an all-in-one system ( Clearfil S(3 ) Bond ) by one dentist . The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline , 6 months , 1 , 2 and 3 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran 's Q-test and Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS All the patients were examined at each recall . However , five restorations could not be evaluated at 3-year recall as two teeth had been extracted and three restorations had been lost . The only minor problem was the integrity of the enamel margin . The incidence and extent of marginal staining increased with time , but it was still superficial . Marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations for AP and 12 restorations for FX after 3 years . Neither lesion size nor depth had influence on marginal staining adjacent to each type of resin composite . There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between AP and FX for each variable . CONCLUSIONS Under the protocol used in this study , both types of resin composite in conjunction with S(3 ) Bond demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 3 years This r and omized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive ( iBond ) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etch-prime-bond adhesive ( Gluma Solid Bond , SB ) .  One-hundred and five lesions were r and omly assigned to four groups according to adhesive , sclerosis scale and technique : 1 ) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=26 ) ; 2 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=28 ) ; 3 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=25 ) and 4 ) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=26 ) . A microfilled composite ( Durafill VS ) was used as the restorative material . The restorations were evaluated for retention , color match , marginal adaptation , anatomic form , cavosurface margin discoloration , secondary caries , pre- and post-operative sensitivity , surface texture and fracture at insertion ( baseline ) , 6 , 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria ( Alfa = excellent ; Bravo= clinical ly acceptable ; Charlie= clinical ly unacceptable ) . There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation ( 4%-32 % ) and marginal discoloration ( 18%-60 % ) in Groups 2 , 3 and 4 , but all groups had < 5 % Charlie scores at 6 months and < 10 % Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration , respectively . However , it should be noted that 13 % of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years OBJECTIVES The objective of this r and omized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 8-year clinical performance of a mild 2-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious Class-V lesions with and without prior selective phosphoric acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins . METHODS A total of 100 non-carious Class-V lesions in 29 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X ( Kuraray ) .  The composite restorations were bonded following two different approaches : ( 1 ) application of Clearfil SE ( Kuraray ) following a self-etch approach ( control group ; C-SE non-etch ) , ( 2 ) selective phosphoric acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins before application of Clearfil SE ( experimental group ; C-SE etch ) . The restorations were evaluated after 6 months , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 and 8 years of clinical service regarding their retention , marginal integrity and discoloration , caries occurrence , preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensitivity . RESULTS The recall rate at 8 years was 76 % . Only two restorations , one of the C-SE non-etch group and one of the C-SE etch group , were clinical ly unacceptable due to loss of retention leading to a retention rate and a clinical success rate of 97 % in both groups . Aging of the restorations was characterized by an increase in the percentage of restorations with a small but clinical ly acceptable marginal defect ( C-SE non-etch : 92 % ; C-SE etch : 84 % ) and /or a superficial marginal discoloration ( C-SE non-etch : 44 % ; C-SE etch : 28 % ) . At the enamel side , the presence of small marginal defects ( C-SE non-etch : 86 % ; C-SE etch : 65 % ) and superficial marginal discoloration ( C-SE non-etch : 11 % ; C-SE etch% ) was more frequently noticed in the control group than in the experimental group . The difference , however , was only statistically significant for the presence of superficial marginal discoloration ( McNemar , p=0.01 ) . SIGNIFICANCE After 8 years of clinical functioning , the clinical effectiveness of Clearfil SE remained excellent , with selective acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins only having some minor positive effect on marginal integrity and absence of marginal discoloration at enamel Objective To assess 1 ) the quality of reporting r and omised clinical trials in dental ( RCT -Ds ) and medical research ( RCT -Ms ) , 2 ) the quality of RCT reports in relation to the journal impact factor , 3 ) the source of funding , and 4 ) the quality of RCT -Ds in different areas of dental research . Design R and om sample s of 100 RCT -Ds and 100 RCT -Ms published in 1999 were evaluated for quality of reporting under blinded conditions with the Jadad quality assessment scale . In addition , correlation between the quality scores and journal impact factor or source of funding , as well as area of dental research were analysed . Results The quality of RCT -Ds and RCT -Ms published in 1999 was generally inadequate . The quality was largely equivalent in RCT -Ds and RCT -M 
    Output:
    
agent
Conclusion The current best evidence indicates that a glass ionomer cement has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to either a three-step etch- and -rinse or a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system ; a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system .
No significant difference could be observed in the risk of loss of a tooth-colored NCCL restoration between a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system and either a two-step self-etch or a one-step self-etch adhesive system
***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: OBJECTIVE This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 5-year clinical performance of a self-etching primer system including selective enamel-etching with phosphoric acid and a one-bottle adhesive system . METHODS Seventy-two non-carious cervical lesions in 8 patients ( 4 male and 4 female ) with a mean age of 61.3 years ( range 45 - 78 ) participated in the study . An enamel bevel was placed and dentin lightly ground , and cavities restored with clearfil liner bond II ( LB ) or single bond ( SB ) in conjunction with a hybrid resin composite ( Clearfil AP-X ) . In the case of 27 cavities for LB , the enamel was pretreated with 37 % phosphoric acid for 10 s. Each patient received both types of restoration , which were distributed on a r and om basis . All restorations ( 37 restorations for LB and 35 restorations for SB ) were placed by one dentist . The restorations were evaluated blind after 5 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS All but one restoration ( which was replaced by a crown after the 2-year recall ) were evaluated after 5 years . 100 % retention rates were recorded for both restorative groups . No caries was detected in association with any restorations . The only minor problem was marginal discoloration ; superficial and localized marginal discoloration occurred around 18 % of the restorations , and mainly at the dentin margin . There were no significant differences in the marginal integrity between the LB and SB groups . CONCLUSIONS Restorative material s used in this study demonstrated a good clinical effectiveness in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions for 5 years PURPOSE To study the clinical performance of two c and i date s for improvement of the original Gluma bonding system . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Eight teeth with cervical buccal abrasion/erosion lesions were identified in 40 patients . The lesions were conditioned with an oxalic acid solution followed by either a HEMA-glutaraldehyde bonding agent or a formamide-containing bonding agent . The lesions were restored with a hybrid composite . Each patient received the same number of restorations with the two different bonding formulations . All restorations were made by the same operator ( JK ) . Evaluations were based on the USPHS system . RESULTS No difference between the two groups as to retention , marginal adaptation and discoloration was observed after 3 years . Eight restorations were lost and a slight increase in marginal discoloration was seen during the observation period BACKGROUND A new restorative called a " giomer composite " has been introduced . The authors conducted a study to determine retention , anatomical form , caries , staining , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer  compared with those of a microfilled composite . METHODS The authors placed 40 sets of restorations r and omly in canines and premolars in vivo . They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments . They placed the restorations according to manufacturer 's recommendations , and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six , 18 and 36 months . The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present , the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type . RESULTS There were no differences in the restorations at baseline , an evaluation made two weeks after placement . At 36 months , the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated . The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period . CONCLUSIONS Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Material s established by the American Dental Association . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions PURPOSE To compare the clinical performance of a resin composite and a polyacid-modified resin composite ( compomer ) in non-carious cervical lesions using a one-step self-etch adhesive . METHODS Thirty patients , each with two non-carious cervical lesions ( 60 restorations ) , received one composite ( Pertac-II ) restoration and one compomer ( Hytac ) restoration , both used in conjunction with a self-etch adhesive ( Prompt L-Pop ) and placed following the manufacturer 's instructions . Evaluations were at baseline , 6 , 12 and 36 months after placement for retention , margin adaptation , marginal discoloration , anatomic form , secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity . Statistical analysis with the Pearson Chi-square test was undertaken . RESULTS Retention rates were 86.6 % for composite and 86.7 % for compomer at 36 months . 3.3 % of composite and 6.7 % of compomer restorations showed a deficiency in marginal adaptation . Both material s showed a slight marginal discoloration of 7.7 % . More deterioration in anatomic form occurred with the compomer ( 11.5 % ) than the composite ( 3.8 % ) . None of the restorations exhibited secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity problems . There was no significant difference in performance between the material s in any of the categories evaluated Three restorative material s used for cervical erosion /abrasion lesions were evaluated clinical ly after 10 years . Thirty adult patients with at least four cervical lesions received one restoration of each of Ketac-Fil , finished immediately , Ketac-Fil , finished after a delay , Chelon-FIl ( all glass-ionomer cements ) , and Cervident ( a resin composite ) . Restorations were placed without any tooth preparations . Eighteen patients returned for their 10-year examinations . Two experienced examiners provided the periodic evaluations . Complete retention at 10 years was 83 % for Ketac-Fil , finished immediately ; 78 % for Ketac-Fil , finished after a delay ; 67 % for Chelon-Fil ; and 17 % for Cervident . All three glass-ionomer restorative material s exhibited statistically significantly greater retention that did Cervident . When a noninvasive procedure is desired , glass-ionomer material s are the restorative material of choice for abrasion/erosion lesions because of their long-term retention values One hundred non-carious , non-undercut cervical lesions were restored with Silux Plus or Estio LC and bonded with Fuji Bond LC . The restorations were evaluated yearly for retention and marginal discoloration . After five years , the overall retention rate was 96 % . Of the 41 restorations examined at five years , five had clinical ly evident marginal discoloration OBJECTIVES This r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 3-year clinical performance of a hybrid ( Clearfil AP-X ; AP ) and a flowable ( Clearfil Flow FX ; FX ) resin composite in 98 non-carious cervical lesions . METHODS Twenty-two patients , 11 males and 11 females ( mean age : 61.9 years , range : 29 - 78 years ) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital , participated in the study . Each patient received both material s r and omly . All restorations ( 48 restorations for AP and 50 restorations for FX ) were placed in conjunction with an all-in-one system ( Clearfil S(3 ) Bond ) by one dentist . The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline , 6 months , 1 , 2 and 3 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran 's Q-test and Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS All the patients were examined at each recall . However , five restorations could not be evaluated at 3-year recall as two teeth had been extracted and three restorations had been lost . The only minor problem was the integrity of the enamel margin . The incidence and extent of marginal staining increased with time , but it was still superficial . Marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations for AP and 12 restorations for FX after 3 years . Neither lesion size nor depth had influence on marginal staining adjacent to each type of resin composite . There were no significant differences in the clinical performances between AP and FX for each variable . CONCLUSIONS Under the protocol used in this study , both types of resin composite in conjunction with S(3 ) Bond demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 3 years This r and omized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive ( iBond ) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etch-prime-bond adhesive ( Gluma Solid Bond , SB ) .  One-hundred and five lesions were r and omly assigned to four groups according to adhesive , sclerosis scale and technique : 1 ) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=26 ) ; 2 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=28 ) ; 3 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=25 ) and 4 ) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=26 ) . A microfilled composite ( Durafill VS ) was used as the restorative material . The restorations were evaluated for retention , color match , marginal adaptation , anatomic form , cavosurface margin discoloration , secondary caries , pre- and post-operative sensitivity , surface texture and fracture at insertion ( baseline ) , 6 , 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria ( Alfa = excellent ; Bravo= clinical ly acceptable ; Charlie= clinical ly unacceptable ) . There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation ( 4%-32 % ) and marginal discoloration ( 18%-60 % ) in Groups 2 , 3 and 4 , but all groups had < 5 % Charlie scores at 6 months and < 10 % Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration , respectively . However , it should be noted that 13 % of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years OBJECTIVES The objective of this r and omized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 8-year clinical performance of a mild 2-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious Class-V lesions with and without prior selective phosphoric acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins . METHODS A total of 100 non-carious Class-V lesions in 29 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X ( Kuraray ) .  The composite restorations were bonded following two different approaches : ( 1 ) application of Clearfil SE ( Kuraray ) following a self-etch approach ( control group ; C-SE non-etch ) , ( 2 ) selective phosphoric acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins before application of Clearfil SE ( experimental group ; C-SE etch ) . The restorations were evaluated after 6 months , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 and 8 years of clinical service regarding their retention , marginal integrity and discoloration , caries occurrence , preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensitivity . RESULTS The recall rate at 8 years was 76 % . Only two restorations , one of the C-SE non-etch group and one of the C-SE etch group , were clinical ly unacceptable due to loss of retention leading to a retention rate and a clinical success rate of 97 % in both groups . Aging of the restorations was characterized by an increase in the percentage of restorations with a small but clinical ly acceptable marginal defect ( C-SE non-etch : 92 % ; C-SE etch : 84 % ) and /or a superficial marginal discoloration ( C-SE non-etch : 44 % ; C-SE etch : 28 % ) . At the enamel side , the presence of small marginal defects ( C-SE non-etch : 86 % ; C-SE etch : 65 % ) and superficial marginal discoloration ( C-SE non-etch : 11 % ; C-SE etch% ) was more frequently noticed in the control group than in the experimental group . The difference , however , was only statistically significant for the presence of superficial marginal discoloration ( McNemar , p=0.01 ) . SIGNIFICANCE After 8 years of clinical functioning , the clinical effectiveness of Clearfil SE remained excellent , with selective acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins only having some minor positive effect on marginal integrity and absence of marginal discoloration at enamel Objective To assess 1 ) the quality of reporting r and omised clinical trials in dental ( RCT -Ds ) and medical research ( RCT -Ms ) , 2 ) the quality of RCT reports in relation to the journal impact factor , 3 ) the source of funding , and 4 ) the quality of RCT -Ds in different areas of dental research . Design R and om sample s of 100 RCT -Ds and 100 RCT -Ms published in 1999 were evaluated for quality of reporting under blinded conditions with the Jadad quality assessment scale . In addition , correlation between the quality scores and journal impact factor or source of funding , as well as area of dental research were analysed . Results The quality of RCT -Ds and RCT -Ms published in 1999 was generally inadequate . The quality was largely equivalent in RCT -Ds and RCT -M 
    Output:
    