Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Esthetics”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

2 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2026

Clinical performance evaluation of single-shade versus multi-shade composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Composite resins are widely used as the material of choice for definitive restorations due to their ability to integrate functional and aesthetic aspects in dental rehabilitation. Recently, one-shade composite resins have been introduced to simplify the clinical workflow. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of a "chameleon effect" composite resin with that of a multi-shade composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions after 36 months of follow-up. METHODS: This study was a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with an equivalence design using a split-mouth approach. The sample consisted of 60 patients presenting at least two non-carious cervical lesions, totaling 120 restorations. Restorations were performed using two materials from the same commercial brand: Vittra Unique (one-shade group) and Vittra APS (multi-shade group). The clinical performance of the restorations was longitudinally evaluated according to the FDI criteria. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, while other clinical parameters were compared using the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: At baseline, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the evaluated biological, functional, and aesthetic parameters (p > 0.05). Both materials demonstrated clinically acceptable performance according to the FDI criteria, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 months, no significant differences were observed between the one-shade and the multi-shade composite resins in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This 36-month randomized clinical trial demonstrates that single-shade composite resins achieve structural durability and aesthetic integration equivalent to traditional multi-shade layering when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. This evidence validates a simplified, single-shade restorative workflow, significantly reducing chairside time and operator-dependent variables without compromising the clinical longevity.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Skin cell suspension autograft as an evidence-based innovation in burn and wound treatment: A systematic review of global evidence across two decades.

BACKGROUND: Skin cell suspension autograft (SCSA) is a point-of-care approach to wound management facilitating epithelialization while reducing burden associated with conventional autografting. Despite growing clinical use of SCSA across diverse wound etiologies, the global clinical evidence describing its use has not yet been comprehensively synthesized. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) guidelines to identify studies between January 2000 and December 2024 reporting clinical use of SCSA for wound closure. Data on patient demographics, wound characteristics, and treatment methods were extracted. Clinical, safety, and health economic outcomes were extracted for comparative studies evaluating SCSA against control treatments. RESULTS: Ninety-nine studies across 13 countries were included. Across the overall dataset, SCSA was used alone or in combination with autografting for burns, surgical wounds, traumatic injuries, inflammatory conditions, and chronic wounds. Among comparative studies (n=27), SCSA consistently reduced donor skin, and healing outcomes favored SCSA in 61%, while 39% reported equivalent outcomes. Pain and esthetic outcomes more frequently favored SCSA, while safety outcomes were generally similar, with some studies favoring comparators. Health-economic outcomes suggested potential reductions in length of stay and resource utilization, although findings were variable across studies. CONCLUSION: The available global evidence supports SCSA as a versatile modality for supporting epidermal coverage across wound types and clinical contexts. However, the findings should be interpreted in the context of the limitations of this review, which include heterogenous study designs, variable outcome reporting, predominance of non-randomized data, and the absence of a formal quantitative analysis. Nevertheless, the demonstrated clinical and economic benefits in comparative studies reinforce the role of SCSA as an evidence-based innovation for burn and wound treatment.

Humans↗