Clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive in non‐carious cervical lesions

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of dentin roughening and the type of composite resin used (either bulk-fill flowable or nanohybrid) on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with an 18-month follow-up period.

Materials and Methods

This prospective split-mouth study included 36 patients, each with a minimum of 4 NCCLs. For each patient, 4 types of restorations were performed: unroughened dentin with nanohybrid composite, unroughened dentin with bulk-fill flowable composite, roughened dentin with nanohybrid composite, and roughened dentin with bulk-fill flowable composite. A universal bonding agent (Tetric N Bond Universal) was applied in self-etch mode for all groups. The restorations were subsequently evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months in accordance with the criteria set by the FDI World Dental Federation. Inferential statistics were computed using the Friedman test, with the level of statistical significance established at 0.05.

Results

The 4 groups exhibited no significant differences in relation to fracture and retention, marginal staining, marginal adaptation, postoperative hypersensitivity, or the recurrence of caries at any follow-up point.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of the present study, over an 18-month follow-up period, no significant difference was present in the clinical performance of bulk-fill flowable and nanohybrid composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions. This held true regardless of whether dentin roughening was performed.

Comparative evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive in class II bulk-fill restorations: A 48-month randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical performance of the universal adhesive used in etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) adhesive strategies for 48-month in class II bulk-fill restorations.

METHODS

A total of 84 class II bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) restorations were placed in 35 participants by one operator using the universal adhesive's (Adhese Universal VivaPen) etch-and-rinse or self-etch mode randomly. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6-, 12-, 24-, 36- and 48-month using modified USPHS criteria. The comparison of the two adhesive strategies for each evaluation criteria was performed with the chi-square test. The baseline scores were compared with those at the recalls using the Friedman and Cochran's Q-test (p < .05).

RESULTS

At 48-month, 74 restorations were evaluated in 30 participants (recall rate: 85.7%). Marginal discoloration was statistically more frequent in SE approach (p < .05), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two strategies in terms of marginal adaptation (p > .05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 48-month recall in the SE group in terms of marginal adaptation and discoloration (p < .05). In ER group, significant differences were found between baseline and 48-month only for marginal adaptation (p < .05). None of the restorations showed post-operative sensitivity. Secondary caries was observed in one restoration from SE group.

CONCLUSIONS

The tested bulk-fill restorative exhibited better clinical performance only in terms of marginal discoloration when the universal adhesive was used with ER strategy.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Though ER approach of the tested universal adhesive appears to be advantageous in terms of marginal discoloration, both adhesive strategies had similar impact on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin restorations.

Is clinical behavior of composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions influenced by the application mode of universal adhesives? A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following PICOS question: "Is the risk of retention loss, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation and postoperative sensitivity (POS) equal for etch-and-rinse (EAR) compared to self-etch (SE) or selective-enamel etch (SEE) mode when restoring non carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with universal adhesives?".

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scientific Electronic Library Online, LILACS, OpenGrey and Google Scholar™ were searched. Randomized controlled clinical trials in which resin composites and universal adhesives were used for restoration of NCCLs were considered. Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Meta-analyses were performed using Revman; random-effects models were applied, and heterogeneity was tested using the I² index. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Certainty of evidence was assessed by GRADE tool.

RESULTS

After screening, 20 articles were included in qualitative, while 14 articles were used for quantitative synthesis. Twelve studies ranked as "low", while 8 studies scored as "unclear" for risk of bias. At 12- and 18/24-months the risk for retention loss was higher for SE than for EAR groups (p = 0.005; RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.08, 0.63],[moderate certainty of evidence and p = 0.0002; RR = 0.32, 95% CI [0.17, 0.58], moderate certainty of evidence, respectively). No significant differences were observed for marginal discoloration and adaptation (p > 0.05). The probability of POS occurrence was less in SE than in EAR groups (RR = 2.12, 95% CI [1.23, 3.64], moderate certainty of evidence). The certainty of evidence for other outcomes was scored as "low" or "moderate", depending on the follow-up period.

SIGNIFICANCE

Using universal adhesives in EAR or SEE mode provides more predictable retention, while SE strategy reduces the risk of POS occurrence.

Update on Enamel Bonding Strategies

Optimal strategies for the application of an adhesive differ between enamel and dentin because of the differences in their composition. The development of adhesive systems has mainly focused on the bonding of dentin, rather than on the enamel, by etching with phosphoric acid (PA). Dental adhesive technologies continue to rapidly advance, and various adhesive systems have been developed since the study of Buonocore in 1955. He introduced the enamel acid-etch technique. Then, the etch-and-rinse (ER) system was developed, and subsequently, the self-etch (SE) system. Universal adhesives are a new generation of one-bottle SE adhesives that can be applied with either ER mode or SE mode, or a combined system involving selective enamel etching mode. Since the combination of PA etching and the SE system differs from conventional ER systems, the enamel bonding strategy should be carefully considered. This concise review of the literature on reliable enamel bonding strategies should prove helpful to clinicians to choose an appropriate adhesive system to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations

OBJECTIVES

To address contemporary concepts in adhesive dental materials with emphasis on the evidence behind their clinical use.

OVERVIEW

Adhesive dentistry has undergone major transformations within the last 20 years. New dental adhesives and composite resins have been launched with special focus on their user-friendliness by reducing the number of components and/or clinical steps. The latest examples are universal adhesives and universal composite resins. While clinicians prefer multipurpose materials with shorter application times, the simplification of clinical procedures does not always result in the best clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current evidence on adhesive restorative materials with focus on universal adhesives and universal composite resins.

CONCLUSIONS

(a) Although the clinical behavior of universal adhesives has exceeded expectations, dentists still need to etch enamel to achieve durable restorations; (b) there is no clinical evidence to back some of the popular adjunct techniques used with dental adhesives, including glutaraldehyde-based desensitizers and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors; and (c) the color adaptation potential of new universal composite resins has simplified their clinical application by combining multiple shades without using different translucencies of the same shade.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

New adhesive restorative materials are easier to use than their predecessors, while providing excellent clinical outcomes without compromising the esthetic quality of the restorations.