A 36-month Clinical Evaluation of Ethanol/Water and Acetone-based Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives in Non-carious Cervical Lesions

Abstract

A Reis • AD Loguercio Clinical RelevanceBased on the findings of this clinical trial, one may conclude that non-carious cervical lesions should be restored with the ethanol/water-based two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Single Bond, instead of the acetone-based One Step, as the latter presents a high number of debonded restorations after short-and long-term recalls. However, other literature findings should also be taken into account before reaching a clinical decision. SUMMARY

Four-year randomized clinical trial of oxalic acid pretreatment in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions

“…Analyzing marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, postoperative sensitivity, caries, and anatomic form, the authors had 100 % of success at the 4-year recall, in agreement with other clinical trials [37][38][39][40]. There were no statistically significant differences between treatments, and both were significantly important in reducing dentin hypersensitivity.…”

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

“…20,[36][37][38] Most clinical studies reporting clinical evaluation of NCCL restorations still use the USPHS criteria. 23,[25][26][27][28][29][30][39][40][41][42] One study, 36 published as an abstract, concluded that the FDI criteria were more sensitive for identifying differences in the restorations than the USPHS criteria. A more recent publication 20 compared the six-month clinical behavior of several adhesion strategies using both FDI and USPHS-modified criteria.…”

“…The retention rate was reported to be 94% at 18-to 24-month follow-ups. [25][26][27][28][29][30] Using an a of 0.05, a power of 80%, and a two-sided test, the minimal sample size was 50 restorations in each group in order to detect a difference of 20% among the tested groups. 31 …”

Adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review

“…For the primary outcome, only five studies were considered to have low risk of bias for all key domains. 6,20,[29][30][31] The worst clinical performance reported in terms of marginal integrity was found for One-Step with 51% of restorations considered clinically acceptable at 36 months. 38 18,29 One Coat Bond had the poorest reported clinical performance in terms of marginal discolouration, with 86% of restorations clinically acceptable at 18 months, although there was no significant difference between adhesives ( p > 0.05).…”

“…6,20,[29][30][31] The worst clinical performance reported in terms of marginal integrity was found for One-Step with 51% of restorations considered clinically acceptable at 36 months. 38 18,29 One Coat Bond had the poorest reported clinical performance in terms of marginal discolouration, with 86% of restorations clinically acceptable at 18 months, although there was no significant difference between adhesives ( p > 0.05). 33 The percentages of clinically acceptable restorations in terms of marginal discolouration and marginal integrity are summarised for each adhesive system in Tables 4 and 5.…”