Thirty-six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with an MDP-free universal adhesive system using different adhesive protocols: a randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of posterior restorations using a universal adhesive over moist and dry dentin: A 36-month double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of dentin moisture on the clinical behavior of a universal adhesive on posterior teeth after 36 months of follow-up.

METHODS

Forty-five patients participated in this study. Following a split-mouth design, three operators placed 90 Class I/Class II restorations over moist dentin (MD) or dry (DD) (n = 45) with resin composite (Filtek Bulk Fill) and a universal adhesive used in the etch-and-rinse mode (Single Bond Universal). Each restoration was evaluated according to the FDI and USPHS criteria (postoperative sensitivity, fracture and retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and recurrence of caries) at baseline and after 6-, 12-, and 36 months. For statistical analysis, Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used.

RESULTS

No significant difference between groups was observed in each FDI criterion after 36 months of clinical evaluation (p > 0.05). The retention rates (confidence interval 95 %) were 97.37 % (86.5 - 99.5) for both MD and DD without significant difference between them (p > 0.05). Eight restorations (MD = 4; DD = 4) showed minimal marginal staining defects (p > 0.05). Two restorations were lost (MD = 1; DD = 1). Fifteen restorations (MD = 8; DD = 7) presented minor marginal discrepancies according to the FDI criteria (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The clinical performance of the universal adhesive when applied in etch-and-rinse mode was not influenced by dentin moisture in posterior bulk-fill composite restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The level of dentin moisture appears not to influence the clinical efficacy of a universal adhesive when applied using the etch-and-rinse technique in posterior composite resin restorations.

Clinical evaluation of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin using an etch-and-rinse adhesive: A 36-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical performance of posterior restorations over wet and dry dentin with an etch-and-rinse adhesive after 36 months of clinical service.

METHODS

Forty-five participants were recruited, each one had at least two posterior teeth that needed restoration. Ninety restorations were placed on Class I or Class II cavities. For the restoration protocol, a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Single Bond 2) was applied over wet (WD) or dry dentin (DD) and later restored with a bulk-fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill) under rubber dam isolation. Each restoration was evaluated using the World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria after 6, 12, and 36 months of clinical service, regarding the following principal restoration characteristics: postoperative sensitivity, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, fracture of material and retention, and recurrence of caries. Kruskal Wallis analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) and Kaplan-Meier survival analysis were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 36 months of clinical evaluation, no significant difference between groups was observed in each FDI criterion (p > 0.05). Twenty restorations (WD=10, DD=10) showed minor marginal staining, and twenty-two restorations (WD=11, DD=11) presented small marginal adaptation defects (p > 0.05). Four restorations were lost (WD = 2, DD = 2) and the fracture rates (95% confidence interval) were 94.9% for each one, without significant difference between wet and dry dentin (p > 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

The degree of dentin moisture does not seem to affect the clinical performance of a simplified etch-and-rinse adhesive in posterior restorations when the adhesive is applied vigorously over the dentine surface.

Tooth-composite bond failure with a universal and an etch-and-rinse adhesive depending on mode and frequency of application

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of an additional layer of universal adhesive on the interfacial enamel/dentin-composite gap formation in relation to application mode and aging, via spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

METHODS

In vitro class V cavities in 114 caries-free premolars were restored by applying one or two layers of a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal, SBU) in self-etch (se) and etch-and-rinse (er) mode or the reference adhesive OptiBond FL (OFL-er). The restorations were imaged by SD-OCT (six groups, n = 8) and SEM (n = 3) directly after filling (t1), water storage (t2, 24 h), embedding (t3), and thermo-mechanical loading (t4, TCML). The interfacial gaps were quantified using 26 parameters and analyzed using principal component analysis and linear mixed effect models.

RESULTS

Gap formation at enamel and dentin was significantly influenced by the adhesive, the application mode and number of layers (p < 0.001). This was due to the influence of the SBU-er mode (p < 1e-05), which showed significantly more gap formation and a greater range of variation with double application when compared to SBU-se and OFL. The fewest interfacial gaps occurred with one or two applications of OFL-er and one layer of SBU-er.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adhesive application mode and the number of adhesive layers are relevant factors in the tooth-composite bond failure. Double application worsened the adaptation of SBU to freshly prepared dentin conditioned with phosphoric acid.

Five-year clinical evaluation of universal adhesive applied following different bonding techniques: A randomized multicenter clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical performance of a universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco) when applied following different adhesive strategies in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 5 years.

METHODS

Fifty participants were included. Futurabond U (Voco) was applied in NCCLs using four adhesive strategies (n = 50 each): only self-etch (SE); selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET + SE); etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERD); and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERW). All cavities were restored with Admira Fusion composite resin (Voco). Restorations were evaluated after 1, 3, and 5 years using the World Federation criteria (FDI) and the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria.

RESULTS

After 5 years, retention rates were 81 % (65.8-90.5) for SE, 87 % (73.2-94.4) for SET + SE, 84 % (69.6-92.6) for ERD, and 78 % (63.6-88.9) for ERW (p > 0.05). Thirty-five restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 5-year recall (14 for SE, 9 for SET + SE, 6 for ERD, and 6 for ERW; p > 0.05). Sixteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration (6 for SE, 4 for SET + SE, 1 for ERD, and 5 for ERW; p > 0.05) and one restoration showed a recurrence of caries (1 for ERW; p > 0.05) at the 5-year recall. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity after 5 years.

SIGNIFICANCE

NCCLs restorations using a universal adhesive showed satisfactory clinical performance after 5 years, regardless of the adhesive strategy.

Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration

The objective of this study was to observe patients' satisfaction with their in-service direct anterior dental restorations and to compare it with clinical evaluation using FDI (Federation Dental International) criteria. Patients scored their own anterior dental restorations regarding satisfaction (satisfactory /dissatisfactory). If dissatisfaction was mentioned, then, they would be interviewed about the complaint. In the same session, the dental restorations were clinically evaluated by two dentists using FDI criteria (1-5 score) concerning esthetic, functional, and biological domains. Descriptive statistics were used for frequencies of scores attributed by patients and clinicians. In order to compare patients' to clinicians' frequencies, the Chi-square test was applied (p ≤ 0.05). A total of 106 restorations were evaluated by patients and clinicians. Patients reported 52.8% of restorations satisfactory and 47.8% dissatisfactory. Overall, clinicians reported the same restorations as 82,3% satisfactory and 17,6% dissatisfactory. Patients' most frequent complaints referred to color, followed by anatomical form, fracture of material and retention, and approximal anatomical form. Comparing patients' satisfaction and dissatisfaction rates to clinicians' evaluation per criteria, there was no difference regarding esthetics. The frequency of dissatisfactory restorations by clinicians was significantly lower when functional and biological properties were compared with patients' opinions. Direct anterior dental restorations were more frequently reported as satisfactory by patients and clinicians, being the main complaints related to esthetic issues. When clinicians and patients' evaluations were compared, it was observed that the frequencies of satisfactory restoration by patients and clinicians were similar regarding esthetic properties, and significantly different regarding functional and biological properties.

Long-Term In Vitro Adhesive Properties of Two Universal Adhesives to Dentin

The composition of universal adhesives, as well as the adhesive strategy, may influence bonding effectiveness and durability. This study aimed to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (µTBS) and nanoleakage (NL), immediately and after 6-month aging, and in situ degree of conversion (DC), of two universal adhesives (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SBU; Xeno Select, XEN) applied with etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies, in comparison with a two-step SE adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond, CSE). Dentin surfaces of fifty human third molars were randomly assigned to the following adhesives: two universal adhesives, SBU and XEN, applied in ER or SE mode and CSE, used as control. Teeth were sectioned into beams to be tested under µTBS, half of them after 24 h, and the rest after 6 months of water aging. Selected beams from each tooth were used for NL evaluation and in situ DC quantification. SBU and CSE showed significantly higher mean µTBS and lower nanoleakage than XEN, regardless of the evaluation time and adhesion strategy. XEN-SE yielded the lowest degree of conversion. Therefore, adhesive properties of universal adhesives to dentin are material dependent, regardless of the adhesion strategy, exhibiting XEN a significantly worse performance than SBU.

Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.

CONCLUSIONS

The type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.

Effect of Extra Hydrophobic Resin Layer on Bonding of Universal Adhesive Systems to Enamel

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to compare the effect of solvent in universal adhesives (UA) and the application of an extra layer of hydrophobic bonding resin on enamel shear bond strengths (SBS).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Crowns of 224 bovine mandibular incisors were embedded in acrylic resin, wet-polished up to 600-grit silicon carbide paper and assigned to 3 UAs with different solvents (n=32): ethanol-based UA (ADU, AdheSE Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent); isopropanol-based UA (PBU, Prime&Bond Universal, Dentsply Sirona); and acetone-based UA (OPT, OptiBond Universal, Kerr Co). The same UAs were also applied with an extra layer of a hydrophobic bonding resin (HLB, Heliobond, Ivoclar Vivadent): ADU + HLB; PBU + HLB; and OPT + HLB. HLB alone was used as control. Enamel was etched with 37.5% H3PO4 (Kerr Gel Etchant, Kerr Co) for 15 seconds, rinsed with water, and air dried. UAs were applied according to the respective manufacturer's instructions. After adhesive application, composite cylinders (Filtek Z250, 3M Oral Care) were built up and light-cured (40 seconds/increment, 40 J/cm2) keeping the light tip in contact with the mold. Specimens were stored in water for 24 hours (24H) or for 6 months (6M). A knife-edged metallic rod (Ø=2.8-mm semicircular notch) loaded the composite cylinders until fracture. Mode of failure was analyzed with optical microscopy (40×). Statistics included twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA; adhesive strategy and water storage) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test (α=95%).

RESULTS

Mean enamel SBS ranged from 3.6 (±2.2) MPa (HLB/6M) to 24.7 (±7.1) MPa (ADU + HLB/6M). ANOVA revealed significant differences for adhesive strategy (p≤0.001) but no significant differences for water storage (p>0.05). All UAs resulted in similar mean enamel SBS with or without an extra layer of HLB at 24H. After 6M, only ADU resulted in higher enamel SBS when an extra layer of HLB was applied. All UAs resulted in higher mean enamel SBS than HLB (control). Most failures were adhesive exception for PBU/HLB/6M, which had mostly mixed failures.

CONCLUSIONS

UAs resulted in statistically higher enamel SBS than the nonsolvated hydrophobic bonding resin (control), regardless of the solvent in their composition. Application of an extra layer of hydrophobic bonding resin over UAs did not improve mean enamel SBS for isopropanol- and acetone-based UAs but did improve mean enamel SBS for the ethanol-based UA after 6M. Resin composite bonding to enamel using a hydrophobic bonding resin alone is not recommended.

A randomized clinical study of the performance of self-etching adhesives containing HEMA and 10-MDP on non-carious cervical lesions: A 2-year follow-up study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association of HEMA and 10-MDP in the clinical performance of self-etching adhesives in the restoration of NCCLs during 2-years.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

60 restorations were performed in 17 volunteers and randomized into three groups: G1 (n = 20) - Prime and Bond Universal (10-MDP); G2 (n = 20) - Optibond All-in-One (HEMA); and G3 (n = 20) - Clearfil SE (10-MDP and HEMA). No cavity preparation was performed. After 2 years, the restorations were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria for retention, marginal adaptation/ staining, postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries. The results were analyzed using Fisher's exact test and Kruskal-Wallis test.

RESULTS

All groups showed 100% retention rate, except G1, who lost two restorations (p > 0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation, G1 showed greater deficiency, as only eight restorations (40%) remained intact (p < 0.05). Regarding marginal staining, G1 and G2 showed higher rate, as only 12 restorations (65%) in each one were free of staining (p < 0.05). All groups showed similar results for postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The association of HEMA and 10-MDP monomers in the self-etching adhesives did not influence the clinical performance of the NCCL restorations with respect to retention, postoperative sensitivity, and incidence of secondary caries. However, positively influenced the marginal adaptation and marginal staining at the 2-year follow-up.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The association of HEMA and 10-MDP monomers in the self-etching adhesives positively influence the clinical performance of the NCCL restorations with respect to marginal adaptation and marginal staining.

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the "no-waiting" technique: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the 6- and 18-month clinical performances of a new universal adhesive applied in the "no-waiting" (NW) technique to non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred and seventy-six restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, adhesive strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies with 20 s applications and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the ER and SE strategies with the NW technique. The composite resin restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months using the World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed among any of the groups or criteria after 6 months (p > 0.05). After 18 months, 10 restorations were lost (p > 0.05) (2 with PB-ER [95.5%; 95%CI: 92-100%], 4 with PB-SE [90.9%; 95%CI: 82-98%], 0 with CQ-ER [100%; 95%CI: 92-100%], and 4 with CQ-SE [90.9%; 82-98%]). The restorations performed with the SE strategy showed more marginal discrepancies than those performed with the ER strategy, mainly when the FDI criteria were used (p < 0.05). Those that used the PB-SE showed fewer marginal discrepancies than those that used the CQ-SE (FDI; p < 0.05). A few restorations showed marginal discrepancies after the USPHS analysis (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The results when using the CQ-SE and -ER strategies with the NW technique were similar to those when using the PB-SE and -ER strategies in standard applications to non-carious cervical lesions after 6 and 18 months of clinical evaluation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

After 6 and 18 months, the application of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick with the "no-waiting" technique showed similar clinical performance compared to the standard application of Prime & Bond Active applied using the standard application time (20 s).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier RBR-5f9gps.