scholarly journals Conversion of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a two-step self-etch adhesive: six-months clinical results in non-carious cervical lesions

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Neimar Sartori ◽  
Renan Belli ◽  
Jackeline Coutinho Guimarães ◽  
Silvana Batalha ◽  
Sylvio Monteiro Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions with and without the application of an additional hydrophobic resin coat. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four non-carious cervical lesions were selected and randomly assigned to one of the two bonding technique: 1) a one-step self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) was applied following manufacturer´s instructions; 2) a hydrophobic resin coat (Scotchbond Multipurpose Bonding Agent, 3M ESPE) was applied over the uncured Adper Easy Bond adhesive. All lessons were restored using a microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE). Clinical effectiveness was recorded at baseline and after 6-months of clinical service. RESULTS: Two restorations of each group debonded after a 6-months period. The overall clinical success was 93.8%, and no statistical significant differences could be detected for all evaluated criteria within this period. CONCLUSION: The applications of a hydrophobic resin coat over Easy Bond did not increase bonding effectiveness over a 6-months period.

scholarly journals Clinical Effectiveness of a Hydrophobic Coating Used in Conjunction With a One-step Self-etch Adhesive: An 18-month Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Sartori ◽  
LD Peruchi ◽  
JC Guimarães ◽  
SB Silva ◽  
S Monteiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Success Rate ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Bonding Layer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions with inclusion of a hydrophobic bonding layer not included in the original bonding system as a test of potentially improved bonding. Patients with noncarious cervical lesions received two or four restorations after being randomly assigned to two adhesive technique protocols (n=32): EB, application of Adper Easy Bond (3M ESPE) following manufacturer's instructions; and EB+B, application of Adper Easy Bond, immediately followed by the application of a hydrophobic resin coat (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Bonding Agent, 3M ESPE). All restorations were restored with a microhybrid composite (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE). Clinical effectiveness was recorded in terms of retention, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, postoperative sensitivity, recurrent caries, periodontal health, and pulpal vitality, according to the modified USPHS criteria, for 18 months. Data were analyzed using chi-square, Fisher exact, and McNemar tests at α=0.05. Two restorations of each group were debonded after six months, leading to an overall clinical success rate of 93.8% for both groups. At the 18-month evaluation period, no new restoration was debonded. However, one restoration of the EB group displayed recurrent caries at the dentin margin, decreasing the overall success rate to 90.6% in comparison to 93.8% of EB+B. The success rate between EB and EB+B was not statistically significant (p=0.5). The application of a hydrophobic resin coat over EB did not increase bonding effectiveness in noncarious cervical lesions after 18 months.

scholarly journals Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial of Self-etching Adhesives and Selective Enamel Etching

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-257 ◽  
Author(s):  
CE Pena ◽  
JA Rodrigues ◽  
C Ely ◽  
M Giannini ◽  
AF Reis
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
One Step ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restoring noncarious cervical lesions with two self-etching adhesive systems applied with or without selective enamel etching. Methods: A one-step self-etching adhesive (Xeno V+) and a two-step self-etching system (Clearfil SE Bond) were used. The effectiveness of phosphoric acid selective etching of enamel margins was also evaluated. Fifty-six cavities were restored with each adhesive system and divided into two subgroups (n=28; etch and non-etch). All 112 cavities were restored with the nanohybrid composite Esthet.X HD. The clinical effectiveness of restorations was recorded in terms of retention, marginal integrity, marginal staining, caries recurrence, and postoperative sensitivity after 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months (modified United States Public Health Service). Results: The Friedman test detected significant differences only after 18 months for marginal staining in the groups Clearfil SE non-etch (p=0.009) and Xeno V+ etch (p=0.004). One restoration was lost during the trial (Xeno V+ etch; p>0.05). Conclusions: Although an increase in marginal staining was recorded for groups Clearfil SE non-etch and Xeno V+ etch, the clinical effectiveness of restorations was considered acceptable for the single-step and two-step self-etching systems with or without selective enamel etching in this 24-month clinical trial.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Various Adhesive Systems: An 18-Month Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Moosavi ◽  
S Kimyai ◽  
M Forghani ◽  
R Khodadadi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Public Health Services ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive systems over 18 months in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty patients, with at least three noncarious cervical lesions, were enrolled in the study. One operator randomly restored a total of 90 lesions with resin composite (Herculite XRV). The restorations were bonded with either Optibond FL (OF), three-step total-etch; Optibond Solo Plus (OS), two-step total-etch; or Optibond All-In-One (OA), one step self-etch. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months using the eight United States Public Health Services criteria. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (p<0.05). After 18 months, the retention rate was (OF) 96.5%, (OS) 93.1%, and (OA) 89.7%. Differences among the three adhesive systems for evaluated criteria were not observed in comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages. There was a significant increase in marginal discoloration for (OA) adhesive after 18 months compared with baseline (p=0.011). Other restoration criteria had no statistically significant differences among the three adhesives (p>0.05). With the exception of marginal discoloration, the clinical effectiveness of three types of adhesive systems in NCCLs was acceptable after 18 months. However, using the one-step self-etch adhesive may lead to some marginal discolorations.

Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years

2011 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 889-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Banu Ermis ◽  
Kirsten L. Van Landuyt ◽  
Marcio Vivan Cardoso ◽  
Jan De Munck ◽  
Bart Van Meerbeek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 581-592
Author(s):  
M Jassal ◽  
S Mittal ◽  
S Tewari
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of two methods of application of a mild one-step self-etch adhesive and composite resin as compared with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) control restoration in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Methods: A total of 294 restorations were placed in 56 patients, 98 in each one of the following groups: 1) G-Bond active application combined with Solare-X composite resin (A-1SEA), 2) G-Bond passive application combined with Solare-X composite resin (P-1SEA), and 3) GC II LC RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months according to the FDI criteria for fractures/retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. Cumulative failure rates were calculated for each criterion at each recall period. The effect of adhesive, method of application, and recall period were assessed. The Kruskal-Wallis test for intergroup comparison and Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests for intragroup comparison were used for each criterion (α=0.05). Results: The retention rates at 18 months were 93.26% for the A-1SEA group, 86.21% for the P-1SEA group, and 90.91% for the RMGIC group. The active application improved the retention rates compared with the passive application of mild one-step self-etch adhesive; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. Marginal staining was observed in 13 restorations (1 in A-1SEA, 4 in P-1SEA, and 8 in RMGIC) with no significant difference between the groups. The RMGIC group showed a significant increase in marginal staining at 12 and 18 months from the baseline. There was no significant difference between the groups for marginal adaptation, secondary caries, or postoperative sensitivity. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, we can conclude that mild one-step self-etch adhesive followed by a resin composite restoration can be an alternative to RMGIC with similar retention and improved esthetics in restoration of NCCLs. Agitation could possibly benefit the clinical performance of mild one-step self-etch adhesives, but this study did not confirm that the observed benefit was statistically significant.

Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten L. Van Landuyt ◽  
Jan De Munck ◽  
R. Banu Ermis ◽  
Marleen Peumans ◽  
Bart Van Meerbeek
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Effectiveness of Different Polishing Systems and Self-Etch Adhesives in Class V Composite Resin Restorations: Two-Year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
J-H Jang ◽  
H-Y Kim ◽  
S-M Shin ◽  
C-O Lee ◽  
DS Kim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Class V ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Resin Restorations

SUMMARY The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p<0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p>0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of One-step Self-etch Adhesives Applied Actively in Cervical Lesions: 24-month Clinical Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Zander-Grande ◽  
R C Amaral ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
LP Barroso ◽  
A Reis
Keyword(s):  
Generalized Linear Model ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Application Rates ◽  
Mode Of Application ◽  
Application Mode ◽  
One Step ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) under active or passive application mode. Methods Thirty-one patients with four NCCL were enrolled in this study. One hundred and twenty-four restorations were placed according to one of the following conditions: 1) Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP), active application (APA); 2) AP, passive application (APP); 3) Xeno III (XE), active application (XEA), or 4) XE, passive application (XEP). The restorations were evaluated by the FDI World Dental Federation criteria at baseline and after six, 12, and 24 months of clinical service. The effects of adhesive, mode of application, and recall period were assessed via mixed generalized linear model (α=0.05). Results The adhesive AP and the passive application mode showed significantly higher marginal staining than did XE and active application, respectively (p<0.05). With regard to the retention rates, the active application mode yielded higher retention rates at the 24-month recall compared to the passive application, regardless of the material. The individual retention rates (95% confidence interval) of both adhesives in the active application mode were the same, 96.8% (83.8-99.4%), while in the passive application rates were 87.1% (71.2-94.9%) and 80.7% (63.7-90.8%) for XE and AP, respectively. Conclusions The active application improved the retention rates of both adhesives after 24 months and minimized the marginal staining at enamel margins.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document