18-month clinical evaluation of a copper-containing universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Matos, Thalita de Paris; Gutiérrez, Mário Felipe; Hanzen, Taíse Alessandra; Malaquias, Pâmela; Souza, Jullian Josnei de; Hass, Viviane; Fernández, Eduardo; Reis, Alessandra; Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103219

Cited by 25 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, the same results were observed, given that, five lost restorations were in premolar (two maxillary and three mandibular) and two in maxillary incisors in agreement with Heymann's results [35]. This seems to be the reason that explains why, in many studies in which clinical follow-up of adhesive restorations in NCCL was performed, both anterior and posterior teeth were included [36][37][38][39][40][41].…”

Section: Recurrence Of Cariessupporting

confidence: 90%

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:The objective of this double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of two methacrylate-based flowable composite and ormocer-based flowable composite in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adult patients. Material and Methods: 183 restorations were performed on NCCLs using the Futurabond U adhesive system, applied in the selective enamel etching mode in all cavities. After the adhesive application, the cavities were restored with one out of the three evaluated flowable composites (n = 61 per group): ormocer-based flowable composite (Admira Fusion Flow, ORM), low viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Flow, LV) and high viscosity methacrylate-based composite (GrandioSO Heavy Flow, HV). After 12 months of clinical performance, these restorations were evaluated according to FDI and USPHS criteria in the following items: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence. Results: eight restorations were lost/fractured after 12 months of clinical evaluation (1 in the ORM and 7 in the HV group). The retention rates for 12-months (95% confidence interval) were 98.4% (91.3%-99.7%) for the ORM group, 100% (94.5%-100%) for the LV group and 88.5% (78.1%-94.3%) for the HV group, with no statistical difference identified between any pair of groups (p > 0.05). Five restorations presented small marginal adaptation defects at the 12-months evaluation recall, and all of them were considered clinically acceptable. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the universal adhesive associated to ormocer-based or methacrylate-based flowable composite were found to be promising after 12-month of clinical evaluation.

show abstract

Section: Recurrence Of Cariessupporting

confidence: 90%

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although different clinical trials have shown that the marginal discrepancies of restorations performed with universal adhesives in the SE mode usually develop rather rapidly [ 12 – 21 ], particularly when FDI criteria have been used instead of USPHS criteria [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 19 , 20 , 44 ], most marginal defects are easily solved with repolishing [ 58 ]. In the present study, two clinical criteria were used to evaluate restorations (USPHS and FDI criteria).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the “no-waiting” technique: a randomized clinical trial

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective The aim of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the 6- and 18-month clinical performances of a new universal adhesive applied in the “no-waiting” (NW) technique to non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Materials and methods One hundred and seventy-six restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, adhesive strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies with 20 s applications and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the ER and SE strategies with the NW technique. The composite resin restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months using the World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analyses ( α = 0.05). Results No significant differences were observed among any of the groups or criteria after 6 months ( p > 0.05). After 18 months, 10 restorations were lost ( p > 0.05) (2 with PB-ER [95.5%; 95%CI: 92–100%], 4 with PB-SE [90.9%; 95%CI: 82–98%], 0 with CQ-ER [100%; 95%CI: 92–100%], and 4 with CQ-SE [90.9%; 82–98%]). The restorations performed with the SE strategy showed more marginal discrepancies than those performed with the ER strategy, mainly when the FDI criteria were used ( p < 0.05). Those that used the PB-SE showed fewer marginal discrepancies than those that used the CQ-SE (FDI; p < 0.05). A few restorations showed marginal discrepancies after the USPHS analysis ( p > 0.05). Conclusions The results when using the CQ-SE and -ER strategies with the NW technique were similar to those when using the PB-SE and -ER strategies in standard applications to non-carious cervical lesions after 6 and 18 months of clinical evaluation. Clinical relevance After 6 and 18 months, the application of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick with the “no-waiting” technique showed similar clinical performance compared to the standard application of Prime & Bond Active applied using the standard application time (20 s). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier RBR-5f9gps.

show abstract

“…6,7 La energía que posee el esmalte es muy elevada, por lo que tiende a contaminarse con estructuras de energía baja, por consiguiente, se debe eliminar toda sustancia dentro de la superficie adamantina del diente previo a realizar la restauración. 7,8 Tabla 1: Fuerza en MPa de las diferentes generaciones. 16…”

Section: Adhesión Dentalunclassified

“…En el esmalte es mucho más fácil lograr una mejor fuerza de adhesión mediante grabado ácido, el cual provoca diferentes grados de disolución en la zona de los prismas del esmalte y el esmalte aprismático; se forman así pequeñas microporosidades e innumerables zonas retentivas para posteriormente adherirse con los materiales restaurativos. 8,9 Mucho más complejo es lograr una adhesión a nivel de la dentina, ya que ésta es una estructura más compleja en comparación con el esmalte; la dentina está compuesta principalmente por odontoblastos, ésta no es una estructura cristalina, sino un tejido vivo. La dentina está mucho menos mineralizada que el esmalte dental y a su vez tiene una mayor proporción de agua y matriz orgánica.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Uso efectivo de los adhesivos de octava generación.

Banegas¹,

Vintimilla²,

Morales³

et al. 2022

Revista De La Asociación Dental Mexicana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: a bibliographic review was carried out to learn about, analyze, and compare the different types of eighth-generation adhesives on the market and the difference between each one. Universal adhesives have demonstrated improvements in their resistance, especially in the application techniques and properties of these materials, improving the adhesive strength so that the dentist can provide successful restorative treatments. Objective: to know, analyze and compare the different types of eighth-generation adhesives used in dentistry. Material and methods: a search was made of the following electronic databases: PubMed, BVS, Redalyc, ScienceDirect. Finally, 32 articles that met the predetermined criteria and the specificity required for the research question were used. Conclusions: it was demonstrated that technology is advancing every day, especially in the area of adhesives since these are very useful in the daily life of the dentist. It is important to know each one of these since it is a little complex at the moment of selecting the correct one, but not the use. Currently, there are several options that the dentist can choose, which is why the professional must be trained on each of the various existing brands and according to the treatment which is the best to use at the time of rehabilitation. The dentist needs to know these materials since they will benefit him/her when carrying out a restorative treatment plan.

show abstract

18-month clinical evaluation of a copper-containing universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

Cited by 25 publications

References 65 publications

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the “no-waiting” technique: a randomized clinical trial

Uso efectivo de los adhesivos de octava generación.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About