Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL – a randomized controlled clinical trial

Abstract

Objective The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Material and Methods Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05). Results The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention. Conclusion GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.

Clinical Performance Between two Types of Composite Resin in Direct Restorations and Its Impacts on QoL

“…The present study used Ambar Universal, using phosphoric acid only in enamel and applying the self-etching adhesive to dentin. This strategy is reported in the literature for showing good results over time, mainly for the post-operative sensitivity factor [28,29]. The ndings of the present study for this parameter are inconsistent with the recent study [26] who reported persistent sensitivity for one of the groups that used bulk-ll composite resin.…”

Bonding Effectiveness of Contemporary Materials in Luting Glass-Ceramic to Dentine: An In Vitro Study

“…A durable and lasting bond to tooth structure can be achieved most effectively using self-etch or universal adhesives with a selective etching technique because the effectiveness of acid etching on dentin still remains controversial. 8,9…”

Influence of cavity depth and restoration of non-carious cervical root lesions on strain distribution from various loading sites

“…Many reports have mentioned that resin-based composites and resin-modified glass ionomer cement are acceptable for restoring such defects [1,[25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. Resin-based composites are more strongly recommended due to their good bonding abilities, satisfactory tooth-colored appearance, and ease of manipulation [31,32]. However, we found no publication reporting the optimum depth of an NCCL for the restoration to prevent damage or the suitability of resin-based composites in inhibiting NCCL progression.…”