Effect of Surface Sealant Reapplication on Clinical Performance of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free Self-etch Adhesives: Two-year Results

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (5) ◽  
pp. 488-500 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Tekçe ◽  
M Demirci ◽  
S Tuncer ◽  
SA Göktürk
Keyword(s):  
Surface Texture ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Color Matching ◽  
Occlusal Caries ◽  
One Step ◽  
Surface Sealant ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Sealant Material ◽  
Dentin Adhesive

SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives over two years with and without the application of a surface sealant. Methods and Materials: In total, 160 restorations in 40 patients were performed for occlusal caries. Each patient received four Class I restorations, which included a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)–containing (Clearfil S3 Bond) and HEMA-free (G-aenial Bond) one-step self-etch adhesive system with and without surface sealant. Half of the restored teeth received Fortify Plus (Bisco) surface sealant material, and the other half were polished with Sof-Lex discs only. Two experienced calibrated examiners clinically evaluated the restorations at baseline and at one- and two-year recalls according to the modified US Public Health Service criteria. The filled surface sealant material was reapplied at each evaluation period. Results: After two years, none of the restorations had failed. There were no significant differences between the two dentin adhesives with or without a surface sealant application among the evaluation periods. Each dentin adhesive with and without surface sealant showed significant changes from the clinically ideal (Alfa) to clinically acceptable (Bravo) with regard to marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and surface texture. Sealed restorations exhibited lower ideal restoration rates with regard to color matching and surface texture and higher ideal restoration rates with respect to marginal adaptation compared with unsealed restorations. In addition, the surface sealant application reduced the marginal discoloration of the HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive. Conclusions: The two-year success rates of HEMA-containing and HEMA-free self-etch adhesives with and without surface sealing application were excellent. Although the surface sealant application was not effective with regard to changes in color matching and surface texture, it improved the marginal adaptation of the dentin adhesive and the marginal discoloration of a HEMA-free adhesive.

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.

Catechin-based Dentin Pretreatment and the Clinical Performance of a Universal Adhesive: A Two-year Randomized Clinical Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 45 (5) ◽  
pp. 473-483 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAGA Costa ◽  
NLG Albuquerque ◽  
JS Mendonça ◽  
AD Loguercio ◽  
VPA Saboia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Retention Rates ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Single Bond ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

Clinical Relevance At 24 months, the dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate did not impair the clinical performance of the adhesive Single Bond Universal regardless of the bonding strategy used. SUMMARY Purpose: To evaluate the two-year effect of dentin pretreatment with epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG) on the clinical performance of restorations of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with Single Bond Universal, applied in two different modes (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). Methods and Materials: In this randomized clinical trial, 33 volunteers were selected, and 156 NCCLs were assigned to four groups: ER, etch-and-rinse; ER-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; and SE-EGCG, 0.1% EGCG dentin pretreatment + self-etch. The NCCLs were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and evaluated at baseline and at six, 12, 18, and 24 months using FDI criteria for retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, caries, and postoperative sensitivity. Two evaluators were blinded to the treatments performed, and impressions were taken for resin replicas to allow indirect observations. Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and McNemar tests with a significance level of 5%. Results: Six restorations (one from ER, two from SE, one from ER-EGCG, and two from SEEGCG) were lost at 24 months with no significant differences (p>0.05). The retention rates were 97.0% (ER and ER-EGCG), 94.1% (SE), and 94.2% (SE-EGCG). For marginal adaptation, a significant difference was detected between the baseline and 24 months for the SE group (p=0.0313). There were no statistical differences among all other evaluated criteria at 24 months, neither for each group at baseline nor for 24-month comparisons (p>0.05). Conclusions: The pretreatment with EGCG provided no benefit in the clinical performance of the adhesive regardless of the bonding strategy used. In addition, it adds an additional required step to the restorative procedure.

scholarly journals Nanohybrid and microfilled composite resin in Class II restoration of permanent molar teeth

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-98
Author(s):  
Hasan Ali ◽  
Md. Joynal Abdin ◽  
Noor Jahan Akhter ◽  
Mozammal Hossain
Keyword(s):  
Composite Resin ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Single Step ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Permanent Molar ◽  
Molar Teeth ◽  
Nanohybrid Composite ◽  
Composite Resin Restorations ◽  
Self Etch

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of nanohybrid composite resin in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch adhesive with that of microfilled composite resin of permanent posterior molar teeth. A total of 100 participants who received Class II restorations either with nanohybrid composite resin bonded with a single step self-etch adhesive or conventional microfilled composite bonded with a single step self-etch adhesive. All restorations were evaluated by using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. The results revealed that nanohybrid composite resin showed better clinical outcome than that of the conventional microfilled composite resin restorations in respect to retention and marginal adaptation at 12 months observation period. It can be concluded that nanohybrid is superior to conventional microfilled composite resin in respect to retention, and marginal adaptation of Class II restorations of permanent molar teeth.

scholarly journals Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Secil Bektaş Donmez ◽  
Melek D. Turgut ◽  
Serdar Uysal ◽  
Pinar Ozdemir ◽  
Meryem Tekcicek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
The Self ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Etch

The purpose of this study was to assess the clinical performance of composite restorations placed with different adhesive systems in primary teeth. In 32 patients, 128 composite restorations were placed using a split-mouth design as follows (4 groups/patient): three-step etch-and-rinse (Group 1), two-step etch-and-rinse (Group 2), two-step self-etch (Group 3), and one-step self-etch (Group 4). The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 18, and 36 months according to the FDI criteria. There was no significant difference between the adhesive systems in retention of the restorations (p>0.05). Over time, there was a statistically significant decrease in marginal adaptation in all groups, whereas surface and marginal staining significantly increased in Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.05). The etch-and-rinse adhesive systems resulted in better marginal adaptation than the self-etch adhesive systems (p<0.05). It was concluded that preetching of the primary enamel might help improve the clinical performance of the self-etch adhesive systems in primary teeth.

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&gt;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&gt;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&gt;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.

scholarly journals Clinical Effect of Dental Adhesive on Marginal Integrity in Class I And Class II Resin-Composite Restorations

Folia Medica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 57 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 250-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neshka A. Manchorova-Veleva ◽  
Stoyan B. Vladimirov ◽  
Donka А. Keskinova
Keyword(s):  
Resin Composite ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Composite Restorations ◽  
Marginal Integrity ◽  
Recall Time ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Step ◽  
Mechanical Factors ◽  
The One ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract BACKGROUND: Dental adhesives are believed to influence marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration when used under posterior resin-based composite restorations. Studies on the latest adhesive systems reveal that the group of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (3-E&RA) and the one-step self-etch adhesive (1-SEA) have entirely different bonding mechanisms, as well as different bond strength and resistance to chemical, thermal and mechanical factors. STUDY OBJECTIVES: A hypothesis that a 1-SEA would result in greater enamel marginal discoloration and poorer marginal adaptation than a 3-E&RA was tested. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred restorations were placed with a 1-SEA and 100 restorations with a 3-E&RA. Teeth were restored with Filtek Supreme nanofilled resin-composite and were evaluated for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration at baseline, and 6 months, 12 months, and 36 months postoperatively. RESULTS: The statistical analysis revealed significant differences in marginal integrity between test groups. The 1-SEA resulted in greater enamel marginal discoloration and poorer marginal adaptation than the 3-E&RA at any recall time. CONCLUSIONS: Marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration depend on the type of dentin adhesive used. The restorations with Filtek Supreme and Scotchbond MP are better than the restorations with Adper Prompt L-Pop with regard to the marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration at 6-, 12- and 36-month evaluations.

Clinical Evaluation of a Low-shrinkage Composite in Posterior Restorations: One-Year Results

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
B Baracco ◽  
J Perdigão ◽  
E Cabrera ◽  
I Giráldez ◽  
L Ceballos
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
United States Public Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Marginal Adaptation ◽  
Etch And Rinse ◽  
One Year ◽  
The One ◽  
Statistical Change ◽  
Self Etch

SUMMARY Objectives The aim of this study was to compare the one-year clinical performance of three restorative systems, which included a novel low-shrinkage composite and two bonding strategies. Materials and Methods Twenty-five patients received three Class I (occlusal) or Class II restorations performed with one of three restorative systems: Filtek Silorane Restorative System (FS); Adper Scotchbond 1 XT, a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (XT); and Adper Scotchbond SE, a two-step self-etch adhesive, with Filtek Z250 (SE). All materials were applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Two independent observers evaluated the restorations at baseline, after six months, and after one year, according to the United States Public Health System modified criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test were computed to compare the behavior of the restorative systems; Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to analyze the intrasystem data (α=0.05). Results All restorations were evaluated at one year. FS and XT performed statistically similarly at one year, but marginal staining for SE was statistically worse. Intrasystem comparisons between baseline and one year also showed deterioration of marginal staining for SE, while a deterioration of the marginal adaptation was recorded for both SE and FS. XT was the only system for which there was no statistical change of the parameters measured in this study. Conclusions Both restorative systems using self-etch adhesives showed a tendency to degradation of marginal adaptation after one year of clinical use, compared to baseline values. Although the clinical performance of FS was deemed acceptable after one year, this study did not find any advantage of the silorane-based composite over the methacrylate-based composite. The low-shrinkage associated with FS may not be a determinant factor for clinical success.

Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsten L. Van Landuyt ◽  
Jan De Munck ◽  
R. Banu Ermis ◽  
Marleen Peumans ◽  
Bart Van Meerbeek
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

scholarly journals Conversion of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a two-step self-etch adhesive: six-months clinical results in non-carious cervical lesions

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Neimar Sartori ◽  
Renan Belli ◽  
Jackeline Coutinho Guimarães ◽  
Silvana Batalha ◽  
Sylvio Monteiro Jr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Clinical Results ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
One Step ◽  
Self Etch

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions with and without the application of an additional hydrophobic resin coat. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four non-carious cervical lesions were selected and randomly assigned to one of the two bonding technique: 1) a one-step self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) was applied following manufacturer´s instructions; 2) a hydrophobic resin coat (Scotchbond Multipurpose Bonding Agent, 3M ESPE) was applied over the uncured Adper Easy Bond adhesive. All lessons were restored using a microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE). Clinical effectiveness was recorded at baseline and after 6-months of clinical service. RESULTS: Two restorations of each group debonded after a 6-months period. The overall clinical success was 93.8%, and no statistical significant differences could be detected for all evaluated criteria within this period. CONCLUSION: The applications of a hydrophobic resin coat over Easy Bond did not increase bonding effectiveness over a 6-months period.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document