Four-year randomized clinical trial of oxalic acid pretreatment in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nadine Luísa Guimarães Albuquerque ◽  
André Mattos Brito de Souza ◽  
Maria Denise Rodrigues de Moraes ◽  
Juliano Sartori Mendonça ◽  
Lidiany Karla Azevedo Rodrigues ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Oxalic Acid ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Acid Pretreatment

scholarly journals Effect of oxalic acid pre-treatment in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 427 ◽  
Author(s):  
SergioLima Santiago ◽  
Regina ClaudiaRamos Colares ◽  
AndreMattos Brito de Souza ◽  
JulianoSartori Mendonca ◽  
Lidiany KarlaAzevedo Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Oxalic Acid ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Pre Treatment

scholarly journals Six month follow-up of two Bulk-fill composites in non-carious cervical lesions: Double blind randomized clinical trial.

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 210-219
Author(s):  
Patricio Vildósola ◽  
◽  
Jorge Nakouzi ◽  
Sara Rodriguez ◽  
Alexandra Reyes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Double Blind

scholarly journals Six-month Follow-up of Cervical Composite Restorations Placed With a New Universal Adhesive System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
LS Lopes ◽  
FS Calazans ◽  
R Hidalgo ◽  
LL Buitrago ◽  
F Gutierrez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Purpose: The objective of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the six-month clinical performance of a new universal adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria: World Dental Federation (FDI) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS). Methods and Materials: A total of 124 restorations were randomly placed in 31 patients according to the following groups: ER-D = etch-and-rinse/dry dentin; ER-M = etch-and-rinse/moist dentin; SE-et = selective enamel etching; and SET = self-etch. The composite resin EVOLUX (Dentsply) was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated after one week (baseline) and at six months using the FDI and USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests (α=0.05). Results: Fifteen restorations were lost or fractured at six months (one for ER-D, three for ER-M, five for SE-et, and six for SET) (p>0.05 at six-month recall). When ER (ER-D and ER-M) was compared with SE (SE-et and SET) there was a significant difference in the retention rate after six months (p=0.001). Marginal staining and postoperative sensitivity to air were only observed in three (one for ER-M and two for SET) and two restorations (two for ER-D) in both evaluation criteria (p>0.05), respectively. Forty-seven restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the six-month recall using the FDI criteria (13 for ER-D, 10 for ER-M, 11 for SE-et, and 13 for SET; p>0.05 between groups). However, for all groups, a significant difference was detected when baseline and six-month data were compared (p<0.05). Conclusions: The six-month clinical behavior of Xeno Select Universal Adhesive depends on the bonding strategy used. The universal adhesive did not fulfill the American Dental Association criteria for full approval when used in the self-etch mode.

Two-year clinical evaluation of a proanthocyanidins-based primer in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 96 ◽  
pp. 103325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lidiane Costa de Souza ◽  
Nara Sousa Rodrigues ◽  
Diana Araújo Cunha ◽  
Victor Pinheiro Feitosa ◽  
Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Double Blind

Clinical Evaluation of Noncarious Cervical Lesions of Different Extensions Restored With Bulk-fill or Conventional Resin Composite: Preliminary Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. E11-E20
Author(s):  
AMO Correia ◽  
ALB Jurema ◽  
MR Andrade ◽  
ALS Borges ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Resin Composites ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Purpose: This randomized clinical trial evaluated the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite. Methods and Materials: A total of 140 restorations were randomly placed in 77 participants by one operator. NCCLs were divided into four groups (n=35) according to OGD (1.5 mm±10% or 3 mm±10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]) used: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. A two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond) was applied following manufacturer instructions in all restorative procedures. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline (7 days), 6 months, and 1 year by two calibrated examiners, according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria evaluating fractures/retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, recurrence of caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, and surface texture. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for intergroup comparison in each follow-up; the Friedman analysis of variance, followed by the least significant difference test (multiple comparisons) was used for intragroup comparison between baseline and follow-up times (α=0.05). Results: Two restorations were lost at 12 months (1 for 1.5 mm-B and 1 for 3 mm-B). The retention rates at 12 months were 100% for 1.5 mm-C, 97% for 1.5 mm-B, 100% for 3 mm-C; and 97% for 3 mm-B, with no statistical difference among the groups (p=0.570). At 12 months, a statistically significant difference was found among the follow-up times for the same group (1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, and 3 mm-B) regarding the marginal staining criterion; moreover, the 3 mm-C group showed a significant difference from 6 months. No significant difference was found for the other parameters. Conclusion: Both resin composites showed acceptable clinical performance, and the OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of resin composite restorations after 12 months.

Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

2016 ◽  
Vol 695 ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanda Mihaela Popescu ◽  
Mihaela Jana Ţuculină ◽  
Horia Octavian Manolea ◽  
Veronica Mercuţ ◽  
Monica Scrieciu
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

scholarly journals Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 ◽  
pp. 60-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro D. Loguercio ◽  
Issis Virginia Luque-Martinez ◽  
Sebastian Fuentes ◽  
Alessandra Reis ◽  
Miguel Angel Muñoz
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Adhesive Performance

scholarly journals One-Year Evaluation of a Simplified Ethanol-Wet Bonding Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 267-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joyce Figueira de Araujo ◽  
Thais Andrade de Figueiredo Barros ◽  
Esther Marina Franca Braga ◽  
Sandro Cordeiro Loretto ◽  
Patricia de Almeida Rodrigues Silva e Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Group Analysis ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Bonding Technique

The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (TSER), a one-step self-etching adhesive (OSSE), and a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique (EWBT) prior to the application of a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions. Ninety-three restorations (31 for each group) were placed in 17 patients by a single operator. No cavity preparation was performed. After 6 and 12 months, the restorations were assessed by two previously trained examiners using modified Ryge criteria for retention (kappa=1.00) and marginal adaptation/staining (kappa=0.81), and the results were analyzed by Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively. No significant differences were observed among groups at the 6- and 12-month time points for any of the assessed criteria (p≥0.05). The intra-group analysis performed by Cochran's test (for retention) and Wilcoxon test (for marginal adaptation/staining) revealed significant differences between the baseline/12-month time intervals in marginal adaptation in OSSE (p=0.0180) and in marginal staining in TSER (p=0.0117). The survival analysis for retention criteria performed using a log-rank test did not show significant differences (p>0.05). The restorations placed using the simplified EWBT performed equally well as the other adhesive strategies employed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document