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

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.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/19-088-c ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 45 (5) ◽

pp. 473-483 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

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.

Download Full-text

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/13-045-c ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (2) ◽

pp. 113-127 ◽

Cited By ~ 110

Author(s):

J Perdigão ◽

C Kose ◽

AP Mena-Serrano ◽

EA De Paula ◽

LY Tay ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Repeated Measures ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Evaluation Criteria ◽

United States Public Health ◽

The United States ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Usphs Criteria

SUMMARY Purpose To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of a multimode adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SU, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Materials and Methods Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm, etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd, etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set, selective enamel etching; and SE, self-etch. The composite resin, Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 18 months, using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05). Results Five restorations (SE: 3; Set: 1; and ERm: 1) were lost after 18 months (p>0.05 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in four and 10% of the restorations evaluated (p>0.05), respectively, for USPHS and FDI criteria. Nine restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS criteria and 38%, 40%, 36%, and 44% for groups ERm, ERd, Set, and SE, respectively, when the FDI criteria were applied (p>0.05). However, when semiquantitative scores (or SQUACE) for marginal adaptation were used, SE resulted in a significantly greater number of restorations, with more than 30% of the total length of the interface showing marginal discrepancy (28%) in comparison with the other groups (8%, 6%, and 8%, respectively, for ERm, ERd, and Set). Conclusions The clinical retention of the multimode adhesive at 18 months does not depend on the bonding strategy. The only differences between strategies were found for the parameter marginal adaptation, for which the FDI criteria were more sensitive than the USPHS criteria.

Download Full-text

Three-year Clinical Evaluation of Different Restorative Resins in Class I Restorations

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/13-221-c ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 39 (3) ◽

pp. 248-255 ◽

Cited By ~ 22

Author(s):

AR Yazici ◽

I Ustunkol ◽

G Ozgunaltay ◽

B Dayangac

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Class I ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Significance Level ◽

Bonferroni Adjustment ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Restorative Materials

SUMMARY The aim of the present study was to evaluate the three-year clinical performance of a nanofilled resin composite, a packable resin composite, and silorane-based resin restorations in Class I occlusal cavities. Twenty-eight patients with at least three similar-sized occlusal lesions in molar teeth participated in the study. A total of 84 Class I occlusal restorations were placed: 28 with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Supreme), 28 with packable resin composite (P60), and 28 with silorane-based resin (Filtek Silorane). Filtek Supreme and P60 were used with their respective etch-and-rinse adhesive system, Adper Single Bond 2, and Filtek Silorane was used with its respective self-etch adhesive, Filtek Silorane Adhesive. All restorations were placed by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, at six months, and annually for three years according to modified US Public Health Service criteria by two calibrated examiners who did not know which restorative resin had been used. The three restorative materials for each category were compared using the χ2 test at a significance level of 0.05. Cochran's Q test was used to compare the changes across the five time points for each restorative material. McNemar's test followed by Bonferroni adjustment was used when significance differences were found. At the end of the three years, 60 restorations were evaluated in 20 patients, with a recall rate of 71.4%. The retention rate was 100% for all restorative resins. Eight restorations from the P60 group, ten from the Filtek Supreme group, and nine from the Filtek Silorane group were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration. For marginal adaptation, three P60, five Filtek Supreme, and 11 Filtek Silorane restorations were rated Bravo. No statistically significant differences in overall clinical performance were found between the restorative materials except for marginal adaptation. P60 showed the best marginal adaptation at the end of the three years. No differences were observed between the restorative resins for any of the evaluation criteria tested (p>0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. All restorative resins performed equally well in clinical conditions during the three-year evaluation, and no significant differences were found among them, except for marginal adaptation, in which P60 showed superior results.

Download Full-text

Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions

Brazilian Dental Journal ◽

10.1590/s0103-64402010000300010 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 21 (3) ◽

pp. 229-234 ◽

Cited By ~ 15

Author(s):

Sérgio Lima Santiago ◽

Vanara Florêncio Passos ◽

Alessandra Helen Magacho Vieira ◽

Maria Fidela de Lima Navarro ◽

José Roberto Pereira Lauris ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Glass Ionomer Cement ◽

Controlled Clinical Trial ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Exact Test ◽

Marginal Integrity ◽

Bonding System ◽

Etch And Rinse

This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.

Download Full-text

6-month clinical performance of a universal adhesive on non-carious cervical lesions: self-etch and etch-and-rinse techniques

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial ◽

10.24873/j.rpemd.2020.11.713 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 61 (3) ◽

Author(s):

Joana Cruz ◽

◽

Ana Silva ◽

Raquel Eira ◽

Catarina Coito ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Estimating Equation ◽

The Self ◽

Generalized Estimating Equation ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Etch And Rinse ◽

Self Etch

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 6-month clinical performance of Adhese Universal applied with two different application strategies (self-etch vs. etch-andrinse technique) when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. Methods: Twenty-six patients participated in this study. Restorations of 117 non-carious cervical lesions were assigned to 2 groups: 1) Adhese Universal in the etch-and-rinse mode (n=59) and 2) Adhese Universal in the self-etch mode (n=58). The same resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram) was used for all restorations. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6 months, using the World Dental Federation criteria. The results were analyzed statistically by the McNemar test (α=0.05 and power of 80%) to compare the differences between baseline and 6 months and a generalized estimating equation to compare the differences between the 2 techniques. Results: No differences were found in restoration performance between the baseline and the end of the 6-month period in the self-etch mode (marginal coloring: p=0.1366; fractures/retention: p=1.000; marginal adaptation: p=1.000; hypersensitivity: p=0.4795; recurrence of caries: p=1.000). On the other hand, in the etch-and-rinse mode, for both fractures/retention (p=0.0028) and marginal adaptation (p=0.0016), significant differences were found. Significant differences were also detected between groups at 6 months for fractures/retention and marginal adaptation (p<0.01). Nine restorations were lost at 6 months in the etch-and-rinse group. Conclusions: The tested universal adhesive obtained better results in the self-etch technique than in the etch-and-rinse technique, both on fractures/retention and marginal adaptation.

Download Full-text

Two-year Clinical Effectiveness of Adhesives and Retention Form on Resin Composite Restorations of Non-carious Cervical Lesions

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/08-006c ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 34 (5) ◽

pp. 507-515 ◽

Cited By ~ 18

Author(s):

S-Y. Kim ◽

K-W. Lee ◽

S-R. Seong ◽

M-A. Lee ◽

I-B. Lee ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Relevance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Cervical Lesions ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Observation Period

Clinical Relevance Over a two–year observation period, ScotchBond Multi-Purpose was found to have significantly superior marginal adaptation compared to Adper Prompt. Restorations using retention forms showed a significantly higher retention rate in an experimental adhesive and significantly less marginal discoloration in all three adhesives.

Download Full-text

CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THE NANO HYBRID BULK FILL COMPOSITE AND NANO HYBRID FLOWABLE COMPOSITE IN CLASS I RESTORATIONS--- AN IN VIVO STUDY

International Journal of Medical and Biomedical Studies ◽

10.32553/ijmbs.v5i2.1726 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 5 (2) ◽

Author(s):

Anil K. Tomer ◽

Hysum Mushtaq ◽

Anila Krishna Saxena ◽

Megna Bhatt ◽

Ayush Tyagi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Recall Rate ◽

Class I ◽

In Vivo Study ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Flowable Composite

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nano filled flowable and nano hybrid bulk fill resin composite in class I restorations. Methods and Materials: Twenty patients were selected for this in vivo study. Each patient received at least one pair of restorations, restored with nano hybrid bulk fill resin composite (IPS Empress direct [IED]) and nano hybrid Tetric N Ceram flowable composite [TNC]. Each restorative resin system was used with its respective adhesive system according to manufacturers’ instructions. A total of 40 class I restorations were placed by one operator. Restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and 3, 6, and 12 months respectively using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The data obtained was statistically analyzed using Chi square test to compare the two restorative materials for each category. Results: At 3, 6 and 12, months, recall rate was 100%, 95% and 85%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p<0.05). None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, or loss of anatomic form. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, nano hybrid bulk fill composite resin viz. IPS EMPRESS DIRECT showed better clinical performance than nano filled flowable composite in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation. Keywords: direct composite, bulk, hybrid filled resin

Download Full-text

Thirty-Six-Month Clinical Comparison of Bulk Fill and Nanofill Composite Restorations

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/16-220-c ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 42 (5) ◽

pp. 478-485 ◽

Cited By ~ 19

Author(s):

AR Yazici ◽

SA Antonson ◽

ZB Kutuk ◽

E Ergin

Keyword(s):

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Resin Composite ◽

Adhesive System ◽

Class Ii ◽

Recall Rate ◽

Retention Rates ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Chi Square ◽

Chi Square Test

SUMMARY Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a nanofill and a bulk fill resin composite in class II restorations. Methods and Materials: In accordance with a split-mouth design, 50 patients received at least one pair of restorations, restored with a nanofill resin composite (Filtek Ultimate [FU]) and with a bulk fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill [TB]). Each restorative resin was used with its respective adhesive system according to the manufacturers' instructions. A total of 104 class II restorations were placed by two operators. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline and at six, 12, 18, 24, and 36 months using modified US Public Health Service Ryge criteria. The comparison of the two restorative materials for each category was performed with the chi-square test (α=0.05). The baseline scores were compared with those at the recall visits using the Cochran Q-test. Results: At six, 12, 18, and 24 months, the recall rate was 100%, 98%, 94%, and 82%, respectively, with a retention rate of 100%. At 36 months, 81 restorations were evaluated in 39 patients with a recall rate of 78%. For marginal adaptation, four restorations from the TB group and 10 from the FU group rated as Bravo. Two restorations from the TB and eight restorations from the FU group showed marginal discoloration. There were statistically significant differences between the two restorative resins in terms of marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration (p<0.05). No differences were observed between the restorative resins in terms of retention (p>0.05). One restored tooth from the FU group was crowned. The retention rates for the TB and the FU groups were 100%. In the FU group, two restorations showed slightly rough surfaces, and two showed a slight mismatch in color. None of the restorations showed postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, or loss of anatomic form. Conclusions: The tested bulk fill restorative resin demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation.

Download Full-text

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

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/12-355-cr ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 38 (5) ◽

pp. 477-487 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

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.

Download Full-text

Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Lining in Root Surface Carious Lesions

Operative Dentistry ◽

10.2341/15-205-c ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 41 (3) ◽

pp. 268-275 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

U Koc Vural ◽

S Gökalp ◽

A Kiremitci

Keyword(s):

Significant Relationship ◽

Repeated Measures ◽

Clinical Performance ◽

Retention Rate ◽

Root Surface ◽

Marginal Adaptation ◽

Glass Ionomer ◽

Composite Restorations ◽

Carious Lesions ◽

Resin Modified Glass Ionomer

SUMMARY Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite restorations in root surface carious lesions with or without resin-modified glass ionomer lining. Methods and Materials: The sample consisted of 25 female and 14 male patients. A maximum of four lesions were included for each patient. After caries removal, the depth, length, and width of the cavity were measured. Lesions in the same patient were randomly divided into two groups, and the dentin surfaces were either lined with resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Glass Liner II) or left as they were. Self-etch adhesive (All Bond SE) was applied and cured for 20 seconds. All cavities were restored with nanohybrid anterior composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). Two experienced clinicians evaluated the marginal adaptation (retention) rate, anatomic form, secondary caries, sensitivity, and marginal staining of restorations at the end of the first week and at six, 12, and 18 months posttreatment. The data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and two-way repeated measures tests. Results: At the end of 18 months, a total of five lined and three unlined restorations were lost. There was no significant relationship between marginal adaptation and cavity lining at six, 12, and 18 months (p>0.05). Although marginal stainings of restorations were mostly localized, the total number of localized or generalized discolored restorations increased with time (p<0.001). There was a statistically significant relationship between marginal staining and smoking (p>0.05). There was no significant relationship between marginal staining and frequency of toothbrushing at six, 12, and 18 months (p=0.286, p=0.098, and p=0.408, respectively). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, both restorative applications were accepted as clinically appropriate.

Download Full-text