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

Abstract

Objectives To evaluate the influence of the sonic device on the clinical performance of one‐step self‐etch adhesive systems in non‐carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 18 months. Materials and methods Forty patients participated in this study. Eighty restorations were assigned to two groups (n = 40): Sonic application and Manual application. After the adhesive application (iBond Self‐Etch, Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), NCCLs were restored using composite resin (Charisma, Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 18 months both according to the Word Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon test for significance in each pair were applied (α = 0.05). Results After 18 months, 38 patients were evaluated. Twenty‐three restorations were lost (19 for manual vs. 4 for sonic application). The retention rates (95% confidence interval) were 50% (CI 34.8%–65.1%) for manual application and 84.2% (CI 69.6%–92.6%) for sonic application (p < 0.05). Twelve restorations showed marginal staining (nine for manual vs. three for sonic application; FDI, p < 0.05) and nine some marginal discrepancy (seven for manual vs. two for sonic application; FDI, p < 0.05). No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion The sonic application increases the retention rate of iBond Self‐Etch after 18 months of clinical evaluation in NCCLs. Clinical relevance The application of a simplified self‐etch adhesive (iBond Self‐Etch) associated to a sonic device seems to be an alternative to improve the clinical behavior in NCCLs.

Five-Year Clinical Performance of Complex Class II Resin Composite and Amalgam Restorations—A Retrospective Study

“…Regarding the evaluation criteria, some studies have considered FDI to be more sensitive to small variations in clinical outcomes than USPHS [ 58 , 59 ]. In contrast, other studies have observed no difference, and stated that both criteria worked equally well.…”

Some Myths in Dentin Bonding: An Evidence-Based Perspective

“…This was endorsed by some RCTs (Zander-Grande et al 2014;Hass et al 2022). The vigorous manual application (Zander-Grande et al 2014) and sonic application (Hass et al 2022) improved an important clinical outcome: the retention rates of noncarious cervical restorations. Thus, for this protocol, one of the pillars of EBP, the use of the best available evidence, was contemplated.…”