Randomized Clinical Trial of Four Adhesion Strategies: 18-Month Results

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
J Perdigão ◽  
M Dutra-Corrêa ◽  
CHC Saraceni ◽  
MT Ciaramicoli ◽  
VH Kiyan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rate ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Step ◽  
Initial Placement ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance The 18-month retention rate of the two self-etch adhesives used in the present study was similar to that of two etch-and-rinse adhesives from the same manufacturer. However, the quality of enamel margins was significantly better for the two etch-and-rinse adhesives. SUMMARY Statement of the Problem With Institutional Review Board approval, 39 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) were enrolled in this study. A total of 125 NCCLs were selected and randomly assigned to four groups: 1) a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (MP, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA); 2) a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE); 3) a two-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Scotchbond SE (SE, 3M ESPE); and 4) a one-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Easy Bond (EB, 3M ESPE). A nanofilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Restorations were evaluated at six months and 18 months using modified U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) parameters. Results At six months after initial placement, 107 restorations (85.6% recall rate) were evaluated. At 18 months, 94 restorations (75.2% recall rate) were available for evaluation. The 6 mo/18 mo overall retention rates (%) were 100/90.9 for MP; 100/91.7 for SB; 100/90.9 for SE; and 96.4/92.3 for EB with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall. Sensitivity to air decreased significantly for all adhesives from the preoperative to the postoperative stage and was stable thereafter. Interfacial staining did not change statistically from baseline to six months; however, interfacial staining at the enamel margins was statistically worse at 18 months than at baseline for the two self-etch adhesives EB and SE. Marginal adaptation was statistically worse at 18 months compared with baseline only for EB. This tendency was already significant at the six-month recall. Conclusion Although 18-month retention was similar for the different adhesion strategies, enamel marginal deficiencies were more prevalent for the self-etch adhesives.

scholarly journals One-Year Clinical Evaluation of the Bonding Effectiveness of a One-Step, Self-Etch Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesion Therapy

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babacar Faye ◽  
Mouhamed Sarr ◽  
Khaly Bane ◽  
Adjaratou Wakha Aidara ◽  
Seydina Ousmane Niang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Recall Rate ◽  
Acid Etching ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Usphs Criteria ◽  
One Step ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Self Etch

This study evaluated the one-year clinical performance of a one-step, self-etch adhesive (Optibond All-in-One, Kerr, CA, USA) combined with a composite (Herculite XRV Ultra, Kerr Hawe, CA, USA) to restore NCCLs with or without prior acid etching. Restorations performed by the same practitioner were evaluated at baseline and after 3, 6, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. At 6 months, the recall rate was 100%. The retention rate was 84.2% for restorations with prior acid etching, but statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and 6 months. Without acid etching, the retention rate was 77%, and no statistically significant difference was noted between 3 and 6 months. Marginal integrity (93.7% with and 87.7% without acid etching) and discoloration (95.3% with and 92.9% without acid etching) were scored as Alpha or Bravo, with better results after acid etching. After one year, the recall rate was 58.06%. Loss of pulp vitality, postoperative sensitivity, or secondary caries were not observed. After one year retention rate was of 90.6% and 76.9% with and without acid conditioning. Optibond All-in-One performs at a satisfactory clinical performance level for restoration of NCCLs after 12 months especially after acid etching.

scholarly journals Six-month Follow-up of Cervical Composite Restorations Placed With a New Universal Adhesive System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (5) ◽  
pp. 465-480 ◽  
Author(s):  
LS Lopes ◽  
FS Calazans ◽  
R Hidalgo ◽  
LL Buitrago ◽  
F Gutierrez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Purpose: The objective of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the six-month clinical performance of a new universal adhesive (Xeno Select, Dentsply) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria: World Dental Federation (FDI) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS). Methods and Materials: A total of 124 restorations were randomly placed in 31 patients according to the following groups: ER-D = etch-and-rinse/dry dentin; ER-M = etch-and-rinse/moist dentin; SE-et = selective enamel etching; and SET = self-etch. The composite resin EVOLUX (Dentsply) was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated after one week (baseline) and at six months using the FDI and USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests (α=0.05). Results: Fifteen restorations were lost or fractured at six months (one for ER-D, three for ER-M, five for SE-et, and six for SET) (p>0.05 at six-month recall). When ER (ER-D and ER-M) was compared with SE (SE-et and SET) there was a significant difference in the retention rate after six months (p=0.001). Marginal staining and postoperative sensitivity to air were only observed in three (one for ER-M and two for SET) and two restorations (two for ER-D) in both evaluation criteria (p>0.05), respectively. Forty-seven restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the six-month recall using the FDI criteria (13 for ER-D, 10 for ER-M, 11 for SE-et, and 13 for SET; p>0.05 between groups). However, for all groups, a significant difference was detected when baseline and six-month data were compared (p<0.05). Conclusions: The six-month clinical behavior of Xeno Select Universal Adhesive depends on the bonding strategy used. The universal adhesive did not fulfill the American Dental Association criteria for full approval when used in the self-etch mode.

scholarly journals A 48-month Clinical Evaluation of Fissure Sealants Placed With Different Adhesive Systems

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
E Karaman ◽  
AR Yazici ◽  
D Tuncer ◽  
E Firat ◽  
S Unluer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rates ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Fissure Sealants ◽  
Evaluation Period ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
One Step ◽  
Adhesive Application ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARYAimTo compare the retention rates of a nanofilled occlusal fissure sealant placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse or a self-etch adhesive over 48 months.Materials and MethodsThe authors enrolled 244 teeth, each with no restoration or sealant and no detectable caries, from 16 patients. The sealants were placed with Solobond M two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or Futurabond NR one-step self-etch adhesive by four previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers. After completion of the adhesive application, a nanofilled sealant, Grandio Seal, was applied and light-cured. Two other calibrated examiners, who were unaware of which adhesive had been used, independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at 12-, 24-, 36-, and 48-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = completely retained, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. The Pearson χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants used with different adhesives for each evaluation period.ResultsThe retention rates for sealants in the Solobond M group were significantly higher than those in the Futurabond NR group in all periods of evaluation (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference between the retention rates for premolars and molars was found at each evaluation period (p>0.05). There was no new caries formation throughout the 48-month recall period.ConclusionFissure sealants placed with etch-and-rinse adhesive showed better retention rates than those placed with self-etch adhesive.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. E255-E270
Author(s):  
E Gomes de Albuquerque ◽  
F Warol ◽  
F Signorelli Calazans ◽  
L Augusto Poubel ◽  
S Soares Marins ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Universal Adhesive ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

A three-year clinical evaluation of a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions

2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 350-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthias Häfer ◽  
Holger Jentsch ◽  
Rainer Haak ◽  
Hartmut Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Evaluation ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

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

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 581-592
Author(s):  
M Jassal ◽  
S Mittal ◽  
S Tewari
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Resin Modified Glass Ionomer ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Postoperative Sensitivity

SUMMARY Objectives: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of two methods of application of a mild one-step self-etch adhesive and composite resin as compared with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) control restoration in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Methods: A total of 294 restorations were placed in 56 patients, 98 in each one of the following groups: 1) G-Bond active application combined with Solare-X composite resin (A-1SEA), 2) G-Bond passive application combined with Solare-X composite resin (P-1SEA), and 3) GC II LC RMGIC. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months according to the FDI criteria for fractures/retention, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries. Cumulative failure rates were calculated for each criterion at each recall period. The effect of adhesive, method of application, and recall period were assessed. The Kruskal-Wallis test for intergroup comparison and Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests for intragroup comparison were used for each criterion (α=0.05). Results: The retention rates at 18 months were 93.26% for the A-1SEA group, 86.21% for the P-1SEA group, and 90.91% for the RMGIC group. The active application improved the retention rates compared with the passive application of mild one-step self-etch adhesive; however, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. Marginal staining was observed in 13 restorations (1 in A-1SEA, 4 in P-1SEA, and 8 in RMGIC) with no significant difference between the groups. The RMGIC group showed a significant increase in marginal staining at 12 and 18 months from the baseline. There was no significant difference between the groups for marginal adaptation, secondary caries, or postoperative sensitivity. Conclusion: 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.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Various Adhesive Systems: An 18-Month Evaluation

2013 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 134-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
H Moosavi ◽  
S Kimyai ◽  
M Forghani ◽  
R Khodadadi
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Public Health Services ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive systems over 18 months in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty patients, with at least three noncarious cervical lesions, were enrolled in the study. One operator randomly restored a total of 90 lesions with resin composite (Herculite XRV). The restorations were bonded with either Optibond FL (OF), three-step total-etch; Optibond Solo Plus (OS), two-step total-etch; or Optibond All-In-One (OA), one step self-etch. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months using the eight United States Public Health Services criteria. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (p<0.05). After 18 months, the retention rate was (OF) 96.5%, (OS) 93.1%, and (OA) 89.7%. Differences among the three adhesive systems for evaluated criteria were not observed in comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages. There was a significant increase in marginal discoloration for (OA) adhesive after 18 months compared with baseline (p=0.011). Other restoration criteria had no statistically significant differences among the three adhesives (p>0.05). With the exception of marginal discoloration, the clinical effectiveness of three types of adhesive systems in NCCLs was acceptable after 18 months. However, using the one-step self-etch adhesive may lead to some marginal discolorations.

Clinical Follow-up of a Fissure Sealant Placed Using Different Adhesive Protocols: A 24-month Split-mouth Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 362-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
AR Yazici ◽  
E Ozturk Bayazit ◽  
ZB Kutuk ◽  
G Ozgunaltay ◽  
E Ergin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Retention Rate ◽  
Group Iv ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Fissure Sealant ◽  
Group Iii ◽  
Group I ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Acid Etch ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention rates of a fissure sealant placed using different adhesive protocols over 24 months. Twenty-four subjects with no restorations or caries received fissure sealants (Clinpro Sealant, 3M ESPE) placed using different adhesive protocols. A total of 292 sealants were placed as follows by two previously calibrated dentists using a table of random numbers (n=73): group I, acid-etch/without adhesive; group II, with a self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE); group III, with an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2, 3M ESPE); group IV, with acid + self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond). Two other calibrated examiners independently evaluated the sealants at baseline and at six-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month recalls. Each sealant was evaluated in terms of caries formation being present or absent and retention using the following criteria: 1 = total retention, 2 = partial loss, and 3 = total loss. Pearson's χ2 test was used to evaluate differences in retention rates among the sealants for each evaluation period. At the end of 24 months, total retention rates were 57.5%, 27.4%, 84.9%, and 76.7% in the acid-etch, self-etch adhesive, etch-and-rinse adhesive, and acid + self-etch adhesive groups, respectively. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the retention rates among the adhesive protocols at 6 months (p=0.684), significant differences were observed at the 12-, 18-, and 24-month evaluations. At 24 months, the lowest retention rates were observed in the self-etch group (p<0.05). No caries development was observed in any of the groups. The retention rate of sealants placed using self-etch adhesive was poor compared with the other groups.

scholarly journals Clinical Performance of One-step Self-etch Adhesives Applied Actively in Cervical Lesions: 24-month Clinical Trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 228-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
C Zander-Grande ◽  
R C Amaral ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
LP Barroso ◽  
A Reis
Keyword(s):  
Generalized Linear Model ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Application Rates ◽  
Mode Of Application ◽  
Application Mode ◽  
One Step ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objectives To evaluate the clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) under active or passive application mode. Methods Thirty-one patients with four NCCL were enrolled in this study. One hundred and twenty-four restorations were placed according to one of the following conditions: 1) Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP), active application (APA); 2) AP, passive application (APP); 3) Xeno III (XE), active application (XEA), or 4) XE, passive application (XEP). The restorations were evaluated by the FDI World Dental Federation criteria at baseline and after six, 12, and 24 months of clinical service. The effects of adhesive, mode of application, and recall period were assessed via mixed generalized linear model (α=0.05). Results The adhesive AP and the passive application mode showed significantly higher marginal staining than did XE and active application, respectively (p<0.05). With regard to the retention rates, the active application mode yielded higher retention rates at the 24-month recall compared to the passive application, regardless of the material. The individual retention rates (95% confidence interval) of both adhesives in the active application mode were the same, 96.8% (83.8-99.4%), while in the passive application rates were 87.1% (71.2-94.9%) and 80.7% (63.7-90.8%) for XE and AP, respectively. Conclusions The active application improved the retention rates of both adhesives after 24 months and minimized the marginal staining at enamel margins.

A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions

2007 ◽  
Vol 138 (4) ◽  
pp. 507-514 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alessandro Dourado Loguercio ◽  
Dax Dalton Bittencourt ◽  
Luiz Narciso Baratieri ◽  
Alessandra Reis
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Self Etch
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document