Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of two self-etch adhesive systems with total-etch adhesive system in noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study

Abstract

Background: The growing demands for esthetic restorations have stimulated intensive research in the field of adhesive dentistry. Dental adhesive systems are used to promote adhesion between composite resins and dental structure. In the fundamental principles of adhesion, the primary mechanism contributing to the formation of adhesion is micromechanical bonding between the restoration and the tooth. The bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dentin was found to be almost equal to that of total-etch adhesives. The aim of the present prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two self-etch adhesive systems with total-etch adhesive system in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Materials and Methods: In each patient, three teeth were randomly assigned according to the adhesive system used to Group A (total-etch adhesive system), Group B (two-bottle self-etch adhesive system), and Group C (one-bottle self-etch adhesive system). The clinical efficacy of these adhesive systems was determined by evaluating the retention rate, marginal integrity, and postoperative sensitivity at the following three levels: baseline, 6 months, and 18 months by following the Modified USPHS criteria introduced by Vanherle et al. Results: In the present study, the retention rate at 18 month in Group A, Group B, and Group C of 96%, 92%, and 92% was observed, respectively. A marginal integrity at 18 months was 88%, 80%, and 84% for Group A, Group B, and Group C, respectively. Postoperative sensitivity at 18 months was 16%, 12%, and 12% for Group A, Group B, and Group C, respectively. Conclusion: The clinical performance of total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems in NCCLs did not differ significantly with regard to the evaluated parameters – retention, marginal integrity, and postoperative sensitivity.

Clinical performance of various bonding agents in noncarious cervical defects

“…The clinical performance of the dentin bonding agents and restorative material as a system can be verified by its retention in the tooth defects. [ 4 ] Upon clinical evaluation among several of dentin bonding agents, in terms of retention, statistically remarkable difference was detected in between Group I versus III at 12 and 24 months' follow-up. Furthermore, statistically remarkable difference was found between Groups II versus III at 12 and 24 months [ Table 3 ].…”

“…Furthermore, in vivo performance of 5 th and 6 th generations bonding agents were studied in defects of cervical 1/3 rd region, and insignificant differences were noted. [ 4 ]…”

Bis[2-(Methacryloyloxy) Ethyl] Phosphate as a Primer for Enamel and Dentine

“…Furthermore, the proposed system avoids potential detrimental effects arising from excessive hydrophilicity by coating the primer with a hydrophobic solvent-free adhesive as presented in this study. Since ERAs still outperform or are similar to SEAs, but with improved marginal integrity, it is likely that longer resin tags, deeper adhesive penetration, and effective etching of enamel can contribute to bond durability ( Schroeder et al 2017 ; Digole et al 2020 ). We propose that this SEA, which combines the high degree of polymerization and collagen-protective potential of BMEP, while minimizing discrepancy between etching and monomer infiltration, may counteract the disadvantages of phosphoric acid etching of ERAs.…”

Comparative analysis of bond strength and microleakage of newer generation bonding agents to enamel and dentin: An in vitro study

“…Etch and rinse adhesives, which dissolve the smear layer and superficial hydroxyapatite through etching with a separate acid gel, are the adhesion mechanisms currently followed; self-etch adhesive renders the smear layer permeable without obliterating it. [ 4 ]…”