Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive-a randomized clinical trial.
Adhesive strategy
Clinical performance
Non-carious cervical lesions
Randomized clinical trial
Resin composite
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:
Feb 2020
Feb 2020
Historique:
received:
11
01
2019
accepted:
02
05
2019
pubmed:
31
5
2019
medline:
28
2
2020
entrez:
1
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To evaluate if the addition of a layer of a hydrophobic bonding resin to the recommended application sequence of a universal adhesive improves the respective clinical behavior in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 36 months. Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU, 3M Oral Care) was applied in NCCLs of 39 subjects using four adhesion strategies: (1) three-step ER (etch-and-rinse), (2) two-step ER, (3) two-step SE (self-etch), and (4) one-step SE. An extra layer of a hydrophobic bonding resin was applied for strategies three-step ER and two-step SE. The same composite resin (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care) was used for all strategies. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and 18 and 36 months using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, Friedman, and Wilcoxon non-parametric tests were computed. The cumulative failure rate was 8.6%. The 36-month retention rates were 100% for both 3-ER and 2-ER, 76.0% for 2-SE, and 86.2% for 1-SE. A lower retention rate was observed for two-step SE at 36 months compared with both three-ER (p < 0.01) and two-ER (p < 0.01). Identical retention rates were measured for the two SE groups. When retention rate was compared at baseline versus 36 months for each adhesion strategy, a significant decrease was observed for 2-SE. The restorations performed with 3-ER, 2-SE, and 1-SE had a significant deterioration in marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall. The 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive improved for both etch-and-rinse strategies. Phosphoric acid etching is still recommended to provide retention to composite restorations in NCCLs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31147827
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x
pii: 10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x
doi:
Substances chimiques
Composite Resins
0
Dental Cements
0
Dentin-Bonding Agents
0
Resin Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Pagination
765-776Références
Oper Dent. 2018 Sep/Oct;43(5):508-519
pubmed: 29570026
J Dent. 2014 May;42(5):603-12
pubmed: 24373855
Am J Dent. 2012 Jun;25(3):153-8
pubmed: 22988685
Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):465-480
pubmed: 27379834
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Mar;23(3):1443-1452
pubmed: 30109443
J Dent Res. 2018 Aug;97(9):1010-1016
pubmed: 29554434
Oper Dent. 2014 Sep-Oct;39(5):489-99
pubmed: 24299446
Dent Mater. 2014 Oct;30(10):1126-35
pubmed: 25139815
J Dent. 1999 Mar;27(3):209-14
pubmed: 10079627
Eur J Oral Sci. 2016 Aug;124(4):377-86
pubmed: 27315775
J Adhes Dent. 2010 Aug;12(4):259-72
pubmed: 20847997
Acta Biomater. 2010 Sep;6(9):3573-82
pubmed: 20346420
J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2016 Apr 06;14(1):e78-83
pubmed: 26952584
Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):520-530
pubmed: 27351078
Oper Dent. 2013 May-Jun;38(3):249-57
pubmed: 23092143
J Dent. 2008 May;36(5):309-15
pubmed: 18353520
J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 May-Jun;17(3):184-9
pubmed: 19466248
Dent Mater. 2013 Jul;29(7):e103-12
pubmed: 23726360
Oper Dent. 2015 Jul-Aug;40(4):410-7
pubmed: 25575201
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(5):405-11
pubmed: 26525004
Dent Mater. 2013 Aug;29(8):888-97
pubmed: 23768795
J Dent. 2011 Jul;39(7):506-12
pubmed: 21575671
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018 May;30(3):240-248
pubmed: 29377533
J Dent. 2016 Oct;53:1-11
pubmed: 27381814
J Dent. 2014 May;42(5):595-602
pubmed: 24508503
J Dent. 2015 Jul;43(7):765-76
pubmed: 25882585
J Dent Res. 2012 Nov;91(11):1060-5
pubmed: 22968157
Biomaterials. 2005 May;26(14):1809-17
pubmed: 15576155
Oper Dent. 2018 May/Jun;43(3):241-249
pubmed: 29676975
Eur J Oral Sci. 2005 Dec;113(6):525-30
pubmed: 16324144
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Feb;25(1):55-69
pubmed: 23374411
Oper Dent. 2015 May-Jun;40(3):282-92
pubmed: 25405904
J Dent. 2012 Jun;40(6):475-84
pubmed: 22381614
J Dent. 2001 Jan;29(1):1-6
pubmed: 11137632
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Jun;23(6):2767-2776
pubmed: 30368662
J Dent. 2015 Oct;43(10):1229-34
pubmed: 26231300
Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):113-27
pubmed: 23802645
Dent Mater. 2006 Jun;22(6):533-44
pubmed: 16300826
Dent Mater. 2015 Oct;31(10):e236-46
pubmed: 26211697
Open Dent J. 2016 Jun 06;10:268-77
pubmed: 27347230
J Dent Res. 2004 Jun;83(6):454-8
pubmed: 15153451
J Adhes Dent. 2017;19(4):305-316
pubmed: 28849802
J Am Dent Assoc. 2009 Jul;140(7):877-85
pubmed: 19571051
J Dent. 2004 Mar;32(3):173-96
pubmed: 15001284
J Dent. 2015 Dec;43(12):1416-27
pubmed: 26520580
J Dent. 2018 Feb;69:60-69
pubmed: 28962842
J Dent. 2015 Sep;43(9):1083-1092
pubmed: 26159382
J Dent Res. 2016 Apr;95(4):380-7
pubmed: 26701351