An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.
Non-carious cervical lesion
Selective etching
Universal adhesive
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2019
Mar 2019
Historique:
received:
26
03
2018
accepted:
08
08
2018
pubmed:
16
8
2018
medline:
19
12
2019
entrez:
16
8
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period. Eighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. The 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05). The three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs. Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30109443
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2
pii: 10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2
doi:
Substances chimiques
Clearfil Bonding Agent
0
Composite Resins
0
Dental Cements
0
Dentin-Bonding Agents
0
Resin Cements
0
flowable hybrid composite
0
iBond
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Pagination
1443-1452Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Références
Int Dent J. 1999 Jun;49(3):139-43
pubmed: 10858746
Quintessence Int. 2001 May;32(5):385-90
pubmed: 11444072
Am J Dent. 2002 Apr;15(2):97-102
pubmed: 12092999
Oper Dent. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):215-35
pubmed: 12760693
J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53
pubmed: 13271655
J Adhes Dent. 2003 Fall;5(3):183-92
pubmed: 14621240
Oper Dent. 2003 Nov-Dec;28(6):700-6
pubmed: 14653283
Dent Mater. 2004 Feb;20(2):107-15
pubmed: 14706793
Dent Mater. 2004 Sep;20(7):669-76
pubmed: 15236942
J Dent Res. 2005 Feb;84(2):118-32
pubmed: 15668328
Dent Mater. 2005 Apr;21(4):375-83
pubmed: 15766585
J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Mar;136(3):311-22
pubmed: 15819344
J Dent. 2006 Jan;34(1):77-85
pubmed: 15979226
Oper Dent. 2005 May-Jun;30(3):275-81
pubmed: 15986945
Acta Odontol Scand. 2005 Jun;63(3):173-8
pubmed: 16191912
Clin Oral Investig. 2005 Dec;9(4):215-32
pubmed: 16315023
Dent Mater. 2006 Oct;22(10):973-80
pubmed: 16405987
J Adhes Dent. 2006 Apr;8(2):75-83
pubmed: 16708718
Oper Dent. 2007 Jan-Feb;32(1):11-5
pubmed: 17288323
J Am Dent Assoc. 2007 Apr;138(4):507-14; quiz 535-7
pubmed: 17403742
Dent Mater. 2008 Jan;24(1):90-101
pubmed: 17442386
Biomaterials. 2007 Sep;28(26):3757-85
pubmed: 17543382
J Dent. 2009 Feb;37(2):122-32
pubmed: 19062151
Oper Dent. 2009 Mar-Apr;34(2):217-22
pubmed: 19363978
Oper Dent. 2009 Jul-Aug;34(4):384-91
pubmed: 19678442
Aust Dent J. 2010 Jun;55(2):156-61
pubmed: 20604757
Dent Mater. 2011 Jan;27(1):17-28
pubmed: 21109301
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug;16(4):1089-94
pubmed: 21789590
Oper Dent. 2012 Jan-Feb;37(1):3-11
pubmed: 21942235
J Dent Res. 1990 Oct;69(10):1652-8
pubmed: 2212209
Aust Dent J. 2011 Dec;56(4):401-5
pubmed: 22126350
J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2012 Mar;23(3):629-38
pubmed: 22210310
J Dent Res. 2012 Apr;91(4):376-81
pubmed: 22302145
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Feb;25(1):55-69
pubmed: 23374411
Am J Dent. 2013 Feb;26(1):28-32
pubmed: 23724546
Dent Mater. 2013 Jul;29(7):e103-12
pubmed: 23726360
Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):113-27
pubmed: 23802645
Oper Dent. 2014 May-Jun;39(3):228-38
pubmed: 23937405
Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(5):1427-33
pubmed: 24264636
Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(5):1369-81
pubmed: 24671713
J Adhes Dent. 2014 Jun;16(3):243-50
pubmed: 24847489
Dent Mater. 2014 Oct;30(10):1089-103
pubmed: 25091726
Dent Mater J. 2014;33(6):757-63
pubmed: 25311337
Dent Mater. 2015 Mar;31(3):308-14
pubmed: 25637318
Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015 Jan;36(1):15-26; quiz 28, 40
pubmed: 25822403
J Dent. 2015 Sep;43(9):1083-1092
pubmed: 26159382
J Dent. 2015 Oct;43(10):1229-34
pubmed: 26231300
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(4):361-8
pubmed: 26258177
Acta Biomater. 2016 Mar;33:235-41
pubmed: 26827779
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Jan;11(1):ZC41-ZC44
pubmed: 28274042
Dent Clin North Am. 2017 Oct;61(4):713-731
pubmed: 28886765
Dent Mater. 2017 Dec;33(12):e428-e437
pubmed: 29102158
Aust Dent J. 1995 Jun;40(3):167-70
pubmed: 7661762
J Dent. 1994 Aug;22(4):195-207
pubmed: 7962894