Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial

Abstract

Within the limitations of the study, we can conclude that mild one-step self-etch adhesive followed by a resin composite restoration can be an alternative to RMGIC with similar retention and improved esthetics in restoration of NCCLs. Agitation could possibly benefit the clinical performance of mild one-step self-etch adhesives, but this study did not confirm that the observed benefit was statistically significant.

Sonic application of one‐step self‐etch adhesive in composite restorations of non‐carious cervical lesions: A double‐blind randomized clinical trial

“…Similar results were observed on the retention rate when simplified self‐etch adhesives were applied using manually agitated application 25,26 . However, controversial results, in terms of marginal discrepancies, were seen when evaluating manually agitated applications 25,26 .…”

“…[14][15][16][17] Therefore, different clinical approaches were developed to overcome the intrinsically hydrophilic nature of one-step self-etch adhesives 18,19 and to improve the depth of adhesive infiltration into dental substrates. 20 The application of an additional hydrophobic layer, 21,22 previous conditioning with EDTA 23 and dentin roughening, 5,24 as well as the manual active application 25,26 were some clinical approaches previously evaluated to improve the clinical behavior of one-step selfetch adhesives, being, the active application the most used technique nowadays.…”

“…The active application of an adhesive system seems to be a very useful approach, which improves the solvents' evaporation and increases the rate of monomer impregnation into the dental substrates as demonstrated in laboratory results by the higher bond strength, lower nanoleakage, and higher degree of conversion within the hybrid layer formed by one-step self-etch adhesives. [27][28][29][30][31] Unfortunately, under a clinical scenario, the active application of self-etching adhesives remains unclear since that only few randomized clinical trials had tested such approach showing controversial results 25,26 that could be likely affected by the lack of standardization of operators variables including force, frequency and speed oscillating during active application of adhesive, as well as adhesive strategy.…”

Clinical behavior of bioactive glass ionomer (45S5) in moderate caries injuries: Study protocol of a clinical trial

“…And this prevention can also be observed on the proximal surface of the teeth adjacent to those restored with fluoride-releasing materials (Qvist et al, 2010). Furthermore, it is an effective restorative material for primary teeth, presenting a satisfactory retention rate (Jassal et al, 2018) of 84% success after two years of follow-up (Dermata et al, 2018). Patients from six to eight years of age with a high risk of caries did not present a greater loss of retention of RMGIC when this material was used to prevent occlusal caries (Tagliaferro et al, 2017).…”

Clinically relevant outcomes in dental clinical trials: challenges and proposals

“…The difference was not significant (p = 0.49), mainly due to the reduced power. Some examples 45,46,47,48,49 of RCTs that used objective clinically relevant outcomes can be observed in the Table 2.…”