Bonding Performance of Simplified Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions at 2-year Follow-up: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 476-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
RF Zanatta ◽  
TM Silva ◽  
MALR Esper ◽  
E Bresciani ◽  
SEP Gonçalves ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Universal System ◽  
Friedman Analysis ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference

SUMMARY Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the bonding performance of a universal adhesive used according to self-etching or etch-and-rinse protocols in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) and to compare the two protocols with their respective gold standard techniques. Methods and Materials: This randomized, double-blind clinical study enrolled 34 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 29 of whom returned after two years. They received 152 restorations bonded with one of the three adhesives (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, Adper Single Bond 2, or Clearfil SE Bond) and one of the two bonding techniques tested. The NCCLs were restored with nanocomposite resin (Filtek Supreme). Final contours were done with a fine diamond rotary instrument and polished with rubber points. The restorations were evaluated using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria at baseline (seven days after the restoration procedure), 6, 12, and 24 months. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman analysis of variance, and least significant difference tests were performed. Results: No statistically significant differences were found in esthetics or the functional and biological evaluated criteria among the adhesive systems and techniques. Conclusions: The Scotchbond Universal system behaved similarly to the conventional etch-and-rinse or self-etching systems in all the adhesion strategies in the evaluated periods.

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.

Bonding Performance of Universal Adhesive Systems Applied in Etch-and-Rinse and Self-Etch Strategies on Natural Dentin Caries

2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (5) ◽  
pp. 510-520 ◽  
Author(s):  
V Hass ◽  
AFM Cardenas ◽  
FSF Siqueira ◽  
RR Pacheco ◽  
PMW Zago ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive System ◽  
Strength Analysis ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Universal System ◽  
Dentin Caries ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objective: This study investigated the bonding performance of three universal adhesive systems applied using etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) strategies on natural dentin caries. Materials and Methods: Sixty human third molars were selected for this study: 30 naturally carious (CAD) and 30 sound (SD) teeth. The dentin surfaces were exposed, and teeth were randomly assigned to each evaluated adhesive system: Scotchbond Universal (SBU), Futurabond U (FBU), and Prime&Bond Elect (PBE) and an adhesive strategy: ER or SE. The adhesive systems were applied following the manufacturer's instructions, and the teeth were restored using a resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3M). After 24 hours (distilled water at 37°C), samples were sectioned and evaluated using microtensile bond strength analysis (μTBS), micro-Raman spectroscopy to evaluate the degree of conversion within the hybrid layer (DC), and scanning electronic microscopy (SEM) to describe the morphology of the hybrid layer. The μTBS and DC data were analyzed using three-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test for means comparison (α=0.05). The SEM images were analyzed qualitatively. Results: Reduced μTBS values were observed when comparing CAD with SD, regardless of adhesive system or strategy (p<0.0001). SBU showed statistically higher μTBS for both dentin substrates and strategies (p<0.0001). Furthermore, SBU showed greater integrity of the hybrid layer and resin tag formation compared with FBU and PBE. Mean μTBS values for FBU were higher for SD in the SE mode, whereas higher mean μTBS values were observed for CAD in the ER mode, both compared with PBE (p<0.001). Conclusion: Bonding performance is reduced on a caries-affected substrate. The ER strategy was not able to improve the bonding performance on natural CAD for universal adhesive systems. Improved bonding performance was obtained when using the Scotchbond Universal system.

scholarly journals Effect of Different Adhesion Protocols on the Shear Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive Systems to Sound and Artificial Caries-Affected Dentin

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omnia M. Sami ◽  
Essam A. Naguib ◽  
Rasha H. Afifi ◽  
Shaymaa M. Nagi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Failure Modes ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract Objective Bonding to different dentin substrates influences resin composite restoration outcomes. This study investigated the influence of different adhesion protocols on the shear bond strength of universal adhesive systems to sound and artificial caries-affected dentin (CAD). Materials and Methods Occlusal enamel of 80 premolars were wet grinded to obtain flat midcoronal dentin. Specimens were equally divided according to the substrate condition: sound and CAD by subjecting to pH-cycling for 14 days. Each dentin substrate was bonded with the adhesive systems used in this study: Single Bond universal adhesive or Prime&Bond universal (applied either in etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocol). Adhesive systems were utilized according to manufacturers’ instructions, then resin composite was built up. Specimens were tested for shear bond strength. The data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance, and failure modes were determined using stereomicroscope. Results There was no statistically significant difference between the two tested adhesive systems on artificially created CAD with different adhesion protocols. On sound dentin, Single Bond universal, either in the etch-and-rinse or self-etch adhesion protocols, revealed higher statistically significant shear bond strength mean values compared with CAD. Conclusion Single Bond universal adhesive in an etch-and-rinse adhesion protocol improved only bonding to sound dentin, while no added positive effect for the etching step with Prime&Bond universal adhesive was found when bonded to both sound and CAD substrates. The influence of CAD on the performance of the universal adhesives was material-dependent.

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E59
Author(s):  
JL de Geus ◽  
BM Maran ◽  
KA Cabral ◽  
A Dávila-Sánchez ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference

Clinical Relevance The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical performance of filled vs unfilled adhesive systems when applied in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE. Gray literature was also screened. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The risk of bias of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rate, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries of noncarious cervical lesions restored with filled adhesives vs unfilled adhesives. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 3662 studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained for qualitative analyses and 28 studies for the meta-analysis. Only one study was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the other 28 were considered to have unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between filled adhesives compared with unfilled adhesives in relation to loss of retention, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries at any of the follow-up periods (12–18 months, 24–30 months, 3 years, and 5 years or longer). The quality of evidence was graded as moderate for most outcomes at the respective follow-ups, except when there was an explained heterogeneity, which occurred mainly for loss of retention at the 12-month to 3-year follow-up. The results did not depend on whether microfilled or nanofilled adhesives had been investigated. Conclusions: The addition of fillers into the composition of adhesive systems did not increase the clinical performance (retention rates, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries) of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions when compared with unfilled adhesives.

scholarly journals Influence of Different Etching Modes on Bond Strength to Enamel using Universal Adhesive Systems

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. 820-825 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mateus R Tonetto ◽  
Ana CS Diniz ◽  
Larissa M Pinheiro ◽  
Lauber J dos Santosh Almeida ◽  
Carlos RG Torres ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Statistical Tests ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Universal System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

ABSTRACT Introduction The adhesive systems and the techniques currently used are designed to provide a more effective adhesion with reduction of the protocol application. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of universal adhesive systems on enamel in different etching modes (self-etch and total etch). Materials and methods The mesial and distal halves of 52 bovine incisors, healthy, freshly extracted, were used and divided into seven experimental groups (n = 13). The enamel was treated in accordance with the following experimental conditions: FUE-Universal System – Futurabond U (VOCO) with etching; FUWE – Futurabond U (VOCO) without etching; SB-Total Etch System – Single Bond 2 (3M); SBUE-Universal System – Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE) with etching; SBUWE – Single Bond Universal (3M ESPE) without etching; CLE-Self-etch System – Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) was applied with etching; CLWE – Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) without etching. The specimens were made using the composite spectrum TPH (Dentsply) and stored in distilled water (37 ± 1°C) for 1 month. The microshear test was performed using the universal testing machine EMIC DL 2000 with the crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. The bond strength values were analyzed using statistical tests (Kruskal–Wallis test and Mann–Whitney test) with Bonferroni correction. Results There was no statistically significant difference between groups (p < 0.05), where FUE (36.83 ± 4.9 MPa) showed the highest bond strength values and SBUWE (18.40 ± 2.2 MPa) showed the lowest bond strength values. The analysis of adhesive interface revealed that most failures occurred between the interface composite resin and adhesive. Conclusion The universal adhesive system used in dental enamel varies according to the trademark, and the previous enamel etching for universal systems and the self-etch both induced greater bond strength values. Clinical significance Selective enamel etching prior to the application of a universal adhesive system is a relevant strategy for better performance bonding. How to cite this article Diniz ACS, Bandeca MC, Pinheiro LM, dos Santos Almeida LJr, Torres CRG, Borges AH, Pinto SCS, Tonetto MR, De Jesus Tavarez RR, Firoozmand LM. Influence of Different Etching Modes on Bond Strength to Enamel using Universal Adhesive Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(10):820-825.

Two Adhesive Systems-effect on Adhesion to Tooth Structure

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (7) ◽  
pp. 2608-2613
Author(s):  
Larisa Simona Deac ◽  
Kamel Earar ◽  
Adela Loredana Colceriu Burtea ◽  
Alexandra Stefania Berghe ◽  
Aurora Antoniac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Hybrid Layer ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Selective Etch ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Wisdom Teeth ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Group 1

This study evaluates and compares by dye penetration method and SEM photomicrographs the sealing obtained using two different classes of adhesive systems (etch-and-rinse and self-etch with selective etching) with SDR (Dentsply) bulk fill composite. 84 class V cavities were prepared on oral and vestibular face of 42 intact, freshly extracted wisdom teeth. The cavities were randomly divided in two groups and restored: Group 1 with prime &bond one select (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply) and Group 2 with prime&bond one Etch&Rinse (Dentsply) and SDR (Dentsply). Prime&bond one Select (Dentsply) is a single component adhesive and can be used in self etch mode, in selective enamel etch mode, or in etch-and-rinse mode. We chosen for this study the selective etch of the enamel mode. Prime&bond one Etch Rinse (Dentsply) is a universal etch-and-rinse one-bottle dental adhesive, designed to be used in two steps. The bulk fill composites are commonly used in modern dentistry due to their properties of low polymerization shrinkage and curing in layer of 4 mm depth, offering the practitioner a fast clinical procedure with good results. The results showed a good sealing at enamel and dentin margins with no statistically significant difference between adhesives, even though the mean of enamel infiltration was smaller for Group1. Furthermore the results show that there were differences between the two groups, for the infiltrations at the enamel, the values of microleakage being arithmetically higher for Group 1, but with no statistically difference between the two groups.SEM images showed for both groups a good adhesion surface with the tooth, but the hybrid layer of the total-etch adhesives is different from the hybrid layer formed by self etch adhesives, in terms of thickness, uniformity. In conclusion both adhesive systems have equivalent sealing qualities and can be successfully used with SDR.

COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF RESTORATIVE TREATMENTS ON NON-CARIOUS CERVICAL LESIONS OF COMPOSITE AND GLASS IONOMER CEMENT

2020 ◽  
pp. 38-45
Author(s):  
Duong Nguyen Thi Thuy ◽  
Huong Nguyen Thi Kim
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Composite Glass ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ionomer Cement ◽  
Group 1

Background: Composite and Glass ionomer cement (GIC) are common restorative materials of non carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), which effects are controverisial. The aim of the present study was to compare the result of restorations on NCCLs between Composite and GIC. Materials and Methods: follow-up clinical trial with split-mouth design. Thirty-six patients with 96 NCCLs were divided into 2 groups (n=48/group): Group 1 restored by Composite, Group 2 restored by GIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1 and 3 months for pulpal sensitivity, restoration morphology and overall success grade. Results: GIC restorations gained 100% Good results for all parameters at 3 time points. Composite showed 87.5%, 93.8% and 97.9% Good results at baseline, 1 and 3 months, sequentially. At 3 weeks recall, 1 Composite restorations (2.1%) showed Moderate results of Retention and 2 Composite restorations (4.2%) changed colour. Conclusions: There was no statistically significant difference seen among the three groups for 3 parameters. Key words: non-carious cervical lesion, Composite, Glass ionomer cement

Sulphadiazine/Trimethoprim Once Daily in Maxillary Sinusitis: A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison with Sulphamethoxazole/Trimethoprim B.I.D.

1981 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 478-481 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Federspil ◽  
Peter Bamberg
Keyword(s):  
Maxillary Sinusitis ◽  
Favourable Result ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Once Daily ◽  
Days Of Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Blind Comparison ◽  
Cure Rates

In a randomized double-blind study fifty-four patients suffering from acute maxillary sinusitis were treated for 10 days with daily doses of sulphadiazine/trimethopim (1 g) and sulphamethoxazole/trimethoprim (1.92 g), respectively. The efficacy was evaluated clinically at two follow-up visits. X-ray investigations were performed at admission and after the therapy. Of thirty-nine patients finally evaluated, thirty-seven showed a favourable result. After 6–8 days of therapy there was significant difference in cure rates in favour of sulphadiazine/trimethoprim (p < 0.05) while the outcome as evaluated after treatment was similar for both drugs.

scholarly journals Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreia Assis Carvalho ◽  
Murillo Martins Leite ◽  
Jessica Karla Maia Zago ◽  
Carla Aparecida Bernardes Costa Men Nunes ◽  
Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Class I ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Clinical Behavior ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
Application Protocols

Abstract Background Multimode adhesives incorporate the versatility of adapting to various clinical situations by its capacity to be used in different protocols. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin direct restorations (Class I and II) performed with different universal dentin adhesive application protocols comparing adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria. Methods The current study is a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, and convenience sample controlled clinical trial. The participants (age ≥ 18 years) had restorative need of Class I and/or II due to the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations in at least three dental elements. Each participant received three application protocols for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE), one in each tooth to be restored: ER = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n = 50); SEE = selective enamel etch + adhesive (n = 50) and SE = self-etch adhesive (n = 50). All teeth were restored in a similar way using Filtek™ Supreme composite resin (3M ESPE). Restorations were evaluated using the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, at baseline after 7 to 21 (12.02 ± 5.68) days (T1; n = 50 per group) and after 12 to 20 (15.8 ± 2.7) months (T2; n = 46 per group) by two previously calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.80). The statistical tests were performed between groups (Friedman), intragroup (Wilcoxon), and between the criteria considering acceptable and not acceptable restorations (McNemar), α = 0.05. Results A statistically significant difference was observed only for the property “superficial staining”, between groups at T2 (p = 0.01) for ER (n = 13 with score 2 or more) and SEE (n = 3 with score 2 or more) and intragroup for ER (T1, n = 1 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 13 with score 2 or more, p = 0.001) and SE (T1, n = 0 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 8 with score 2 or more p = 0.007). For the other comparisons between groups, intragroup, and between the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, there were no statistically significant differences (p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions It can be concluded that the different application protocols of the universal adhesive resulted in clinically “acceptable” restorations after 15.8 ± 2.7 months of follow-up. Adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria provided similar results to each other. Trial registration. Number in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-9p3hdp. Registered 24 May 2015.

Effect of Different Protocols in Preconditioning With EDTA in Sclerotic Dentin and Enamel Before Universal Adhesives Applied in Self-etch Mode

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 284-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
EC Martini ◽  
SO Parreiras ◽  
MF Gutierrez ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
A Reis
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Microtensile Bond Strength ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etching Pattern ◽  
Bonding Performance ◽  
Universal Adhesives ◽  
Microshear Bond Strength ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Main Factor

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of different protocols of 17% ethylene diamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) conditioning on the etching pattern and immediate bond strength of universal adhesives to enamel and sclerotic dentin. Methods and Materials: Forty bovine teeth with sclerotic dentin and 20 human third molars were randomly divided into eight groups resulting from the combination of the main factors surface treatment (none, two-minute EDTA conditioning manual application, 30-second EDTA manual application, 30-second EDTA sonic application) and adhesives systems (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive [SBU] and Prime & Bond Elect [PBE]). Resin-dentin and enamel-dentin bond specimens were prepared and tested under the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and microshear bond strength (μSBS) tests, respectively. The etching pattern produced on the unground enamel and the sclerotic dentin surfaces under the different protocols and adhesive systems was evaluated under scanning electron microscopy. Results: For enamel, only the main factor adhesive was significant (p&lt;0.0001), with SBU showing the highest μSBS. In sclerotic dentin, the lowest mean was observed for the group without EDTA application and the highest mean in the group with EDTA application with the sonic device for 30 seconds. Regardless of the EDTA protocol, the highest means of μTBS were observed for SBU (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions: EDTA conditioning improves the bonding performance of universal adhesives in the self-etch mode on sclerotic dentin, mainly when applied for 30 seconds with the aid of a sonic device. EDTA pretreatment also improves the retentive etching pattern of enamel, but it does not result in higher enamel bond strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document