Catechin-based Dentin Pretreatment and the Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAGA Costa ◽  
NLG Albuquerque ◽  
JS Mendonça ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
VPA Saboia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance At 24 months, the dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate did not impair the clinical performance of the adhesive Single Bond Universal regardless of the bonding strategy used. SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the two-year effect of dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on the clinical performance of restorations of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with Single Bond Universal, applied in two different modes (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). Methods and Materials: In this randomized clinical trial, 33 volunteers were selected, and 156 NCCLs were assigned to four groups: ER, etch-and-rinse; ER-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; and SE-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + self-etch. The NCCLs were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using FDI criteria for retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Two evaluators were blinded to the treatments performed, and impressions were taken for resin replicas to allow indirect observations. Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Six restorations (one from ER, two from SE, one from ER-EGCG, and two from SEEGCG) were lost at 24 months with no significant differences (p>0.05). The retention rates were 97.0% (ER and ER-EGCG), 94.1% (SE), and 94.2% (SE-EGCG). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was detected between the baseline and 24 months for the SE group (p=0.0313). There were no statistical differences among all other evaluated criteria at 24 months, neither for each group at baseline nor for 24-month comparisons (p>0.05). Conclusions: The pretreatment with EGCG provided no benefit in the clinical performance of the adhesive regardless of the bonding strategy used. In addition, it adds an additional required step to the restorative procedure.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E255-E270
Author(s):  
E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽  
F Warol ◽  
F Signorelli Calazans ◽  
L Augusto Poubel ◽  
S Soares Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

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.

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.

Five-year Randomized Clinical Trial on the Performance of Two Etch-and-rinse Adhesives in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
TP Matos ◽  
TA Hanzen ◽  
R Almeida ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
MC Bandeca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Dihydrogen Phosphate ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Repeated Measures Anova ◽  
Etch And Rinse

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL). Methods and Materials: The sample comprised 35 adults with at least two similar-sized NCCL. Seventy restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: Adper Single Bond 2 (SB) and Ambar (AM). The restorations were placed incrementally using a resin composite (Opallis). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months and 5 years using some items of the FDI criteria. The differences in the ratings of the two materials after 6 months, 18 months, and 5 years were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results: Five patients did not attend the 60-month recall. No significant differences were observed between the materials for any criteria evaluated. Twenty-one restorations failed (12 for SB and 9 for AM) after 60 months. Thus, the retention rate for SB at 60 months were 55.6% for SB and 71% for AM (p=0.32). After 60 months, 12 restorations (6 for SB and 6 AM) showed some loss of marginal adaptation (p=1.0). Slight marginal discoloration was observed in 10 restorations (6 for SB and 4 AM; p=0.91). Five restorations (2 for SB and 3 for AM) showed recurrences of caries (p=1.0). Conclusions: Both two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives—Adper Single Bond 2, a polyalkenoic acid-containing adhesive, and Ambar, a 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP)-containing adhesive—showed acceptable clinical performance after 60 months.

Clinical Evaluation of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Report

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (5) ◽  
pp. 477-487 ◽  
Author(s):  
JO Burgess ◽  
R Sadid-Zadeh ◽  
D Cakir ◽  
LC Ramp
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Dental Adhesive ◽  
Chronic Periodontal Disease ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Salivary Function ◽  
One Year ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two self-etch dental adhesives with Single Bond Plus, a traditional one-bottle total-etch dental adhesive, for the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. Materials and Methods: A total of 156 restorations were placed in noncarious cervical lesions with a minimum depth of 1.5 mm. Patients had no chronic periodontal disease and had normal salivary function. Each patient received restorations on three teeth, each bonded with either Adper Single Bond Plus, Adper Easy Bond, or Adper Scotchbond SE dental adhesive. All lesions were restored with Filtek Supreme Plus composite resin. All teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, received a short enamel bevel, and were cleaned with flour of pumice. The adhesives and resin composite were applied following the manufacturers' instructions. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, six months, one year, and two years using modified US Public Health Service criteria. Results: Two-year retention was recorded as 97.3%, 90.5%, and 95.2%, for Single Bond Plus, Scotchbond SE, and Easy Bond, respectively. Statistical analysis did not show a significant difference (p>0.05) in clinical performance between any of the three adhesives after a period of two years.

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 Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Secil Bektaş Donmez ◽  
Melek D. Turgut ◽  
Serdar Uysal ◽  
Pinar Ozdemir ◽  
Meryem Tekcicek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
The Self ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p>0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p<0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

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.

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.

scholarly journals Effect Of Chitosan Treatment On Shear Bond Strength Of Composite To Deep Dentin Using Self-Etch And Total-Etch Adhesive Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fateme Vasei ◽  
Farahnaz Sharafeddin
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Objective: To assess the shear bond strength (SBS) of resin composite to deep dentin, using 1 and 2.5% chitosan pretreatment as well as different adhesive systems. Material and Methods: 80 human maxillary molars were randomly divided to eight groups according to the type of adhesive system and dentin pretreatment (n = 10): I) two-step self-etch system (Clearfil SE bond); II) two-step etch-andrinse system (Adper single bond 2); III) 2.5% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; IV) 2.5% chitosan +etch + Adper single bond 2; V) etch + 2.5% chitosan + Adper single bond 2; VI) 1% chitosan + Clearfil SE bond; VII) 1% chitosan + etch + Adper single bond 2; VIII) etch + 1% chitosan + Adper single bond 2 (chitosan solution (w/v): 2.5 g and 1 g of chitosan (Sigma Aldrich, USA) was dissolved in 100 ml of 1% acetic acid). Plastic molds were positioned on dentin and filled with composite (Z350, 3M ESPE, USA). SBS (MPa) was tested using a universal testing machine. ANOVA tests, Tukey’s test, and independent t test were used to analyze data (p < 0.05). Results: The highest SBS value among self-etch groups was observed with 1% chitosan (p = 0.001). In the etch-and-rinse group, the SBS of 1% chitosan was significantly lower than the other groups. Chitosan treatment following acid etching led to higher SBS in comparison to when chitosan was applied before etching, with the significant difference in 1% concentration (p = 0.030). A predominance of mix fractures was observed in dentin. Conclusion: Improved dentin bond strength can be achieved through immediate dentin pretreatment with 1% chitosan in self-etch adhesive systems. Chitosan Pretreatment may not be advantageous for etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Keywords Adhesive system; Chitosan; Deep dentin; Shear strength.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document