The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the scientific evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill versus incrementally layered conventional resin composites and to evaluate if one method offers clear merits with specific clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using relevant mesh terms and pre-established eligibility criteria in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, a thorough scientific search was conducted with an end-date of 30.04.2023. Randomized controlled clinical trials that involved the direct comparison of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations applied using incremental layering techniques versus bulk-filled in permanent teeth with an observation period of at least six months were considered. To evaluate the bias risk of the finalized records, a revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was implemented.

RESULTS

Out of the 1445 records determined, 18 eligible reports were chosen for qualitative analysis. Data obtained was categorized as per, the cavity design, the intervention, the comparator(s), the methods of success/failure assessment, the outcomes, and follow-up. Two studies demonstrated an overall low-risk of bias, fourteen studies raised some concerns, and two studies exhibited high-risk.

CONCLUSION

Bulk filled resin composite restorations demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those of incrementally layered resin composite restorations within a review interval of 6 months to 10 years.

Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess which adhesive strategy is most clinically effective in treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Studies were identified by a systematic search of electronic databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Scopus, and Web of Science without restrictions on publication year or language. The grey literature was also consulted. Only randomized clinical trials that compared different adhesive strategies in NCCLs in adult patients were included. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model was used to compare adhesive strategies (3ER, 2ER, 2SE, and 1SE) at different follow-up times. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated for each strategy. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the Cochran Q test and I² statistics. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

A total of 5058 studies were identified, 66 of which met the eligibility criteria and of these 5 were judged "low" risk of bias and 57 were meta-analyzed. We did not observe significant differences in the NMA analysis for any two pairs of adhesives, except for the shortest follow-up for 2ER vs 3ER. The material 2SE ranked highest, although it differed only slightly from the other bonding strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

No bonding strategy is better than the others.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Adhesive efficacy cannot be characterized by its bonding strategy.

Clinical Efficiency of Self-etching One-Step and Two-Step Adhesives in NCCL: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

One-step self-etch adhesive systems provide a clinical time gain, decreasing the number of clinical steps. When a clinician is able to follow a simpler process of adhesion there is less chance of adhesive failure.

SUMMARY

Objective: A systematic review and meta-analyses were performed to evaluate whether one-step self-etching (1SSE) adhesive systems are as effective as two-step self-etching (2SSE) adhesives in noncarious cervical lesion (NCCL) restorations.Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recorded in the PROSPERO (CRD42018096747). Electronic systematic searches were conducted in the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for published articles. Only randomized clinical trials that compared 1SSE with 2SSE adhesives systems were selected. The outcomes were retention, postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and anatomical form.Results: The searches resulted in 476 studies. After applying the eligibility criteria, five randomized controlled trials were selected in which 822 restorations in NCCLs were distributed in 237 patients. The results showed no statistical difference between 1SSE and 2SSE in relation to retention (p=0.23; relative risk [RR]=1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.76, 3.19), postoperative sensitivity ( p=0.50; RR=3.00; 95% CI=0.13, 70.64), Secondary caries (p=0.63; RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.14, 3.31), color match (p=0.41; RR=0.64; 95% CI=0.23, 1.83), marginal discoloration (p=0.93; RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.65, 1.61), and anatomical form (p=0.56; RR=1.38; 95% CI=0.46, 4.13). However there was statistical difference in relation to marginal adaptation ( p=0.01; RR=1.95; 95% CI=1.14, 3.34).Conclusion: This systematic review with meta-analysis revealed that both 1SSE and 2SSE adhesive systems have comparable clinical effectiveness in a follow-up period of 12 to 24 months, except in relation to marginal adaptation.

One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial

Objective

This randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months.

Methodology

134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer’s instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar’s tests were used to detect differences over time.

Results

After 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months.

Conclusion

Although the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year.

Clinical relevance

Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.

Clinical Evaluation of a Self-Adhering Flowable Resin Composite in Minimally Invasive Class I Cavities: 5-year Results of a Double Blind Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a self-adhering flowable resin composite compared to a conventional flowable resin composite used with an etch&rinse adhesive system in minimally invasive Class I cavities.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five patients received at least one pair of Class I restorations (n=65). After class I cavities had been prepared, they were randomly restored either with a self-adhering flowable resin composite (VertiseFlow/Kerr-VR) [Group-1 (n=33)], or with a flowable resin composite (Luxaflow/DMG-LX) in combination with an etch&rinse adhesive (Teco/DMG) [Group-2 (n=32)] according to the manufacturers' instructions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 5 years according to the FDI criteria by two evaluators. A statistical analysis was carried out using the Pearson Chi-Square test and the Cochran Q-test followed by the Mc Nemar's test (p=0.05).

RESULTS

After 5 years a total of 47 restorations were evaluated with a recall rate of 68%. At 4-year, 3 (11.5%) VR and 2 LX (7.6%) restorations exhibited a cumulative retention loss. Seventeen (73.9%) VR and 14 LX (58.3%) restorations exhibited clinically acceptable (2) scores for marginal adaptation. At 5-year evaluations VR and LX showed similar results regarding all evaluated criteria (p > 0.05). The cumulative retention loss rates of VR and LX were 15.3% and 7.6%, respectively. None of the restorations demonstrated a recurrence of caries and post operative sensitivity. Both materials showed significant changes at 4 and 5 years regarding marginal staining when compared to baseline (p<0.001). Furthermore, significant changes were observed for VR and LX at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 years for marginal adaptation according to baseline (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The use of both materials for the restoration of Class-I cavities demonstrated clinically acceptable performance at the end of 5-year. The self-adhering flowable composite exhibited a clinical performance similar to the conventional flowable applied with an etch&rinse adhesive.

Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the performances of two different universal adhesives and one etch-rinse adhesive for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

Material and Methods

Twenty patients with at least seven NCCLs were enrolled. Lesions were divided into seven groups according to adhesive systems and application modes: GSE: GLUMA Universal-self-etch, GSL: GLUMA Universal-selective etching, GER: GLUMA Universal-etch-and-rinse, ASE: All-Bond Universal-self-etch, ASL: All-Bond Universal-selective etching, AER: All-Bond Universal-etch-and-rinse, SBE (Control): Single Bond2-etch-and-rinse. A total of 155 NCCLs were restored with a nano hybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram). Restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after one week, 6, 12 and 24 months. Statistical evaluations were performed using Chi-square tests (p=0.05).

Results

The recall rate was 81.9% after the 24-month follow-up. The cumulative retention rates for self-etch groups (GSE: 72.2%, ASE:75%) were significantly lower than other experimental groups (GSL: 93.7%, GER: 100%, ASL: 94.1%, AER: 100%, SBE: 100%) at the 24-month follow-up (p<0.05). Regarding marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration, GSE and ASE groups demonstrated more bravo scores after 6 and 12-month observations but differences were not significant (p>0.05). Only one restoration from ASL group demonstrated post-operative sensitivity at 6 and 12-month observations. No secondary caries was observed on the restorations at any recall. At the end of 24-month observations, no significant differences were detected among groups regarding any of the criteria assessed, except retention.

Conclusion

GLUMA Universal and All-Bond Universal showed better results in etch-and-rinse and selective etching mode compared to the self-etch mode regarding retention. Etch-and-rinse and selective etching application modes of the current universal adhesives tended to provide better clinical outcomes considering the criteria evaluated at the end of 24-month evaluation.

Compliance of Randomized Clinical Trials in Noncarious Cervical Lesions With the CONSORT Statement: A Systematic Review of Methodology

The literature was reviewed to evaluate the compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT ) and the risk of bias of these studies through the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). RCTs were searched at Cochrane Library, PubMed, and other electronic databases to find studies about adhesive systems for cervical lesions. The compliance of the articles with CONSORT was evaluated using the following scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description, and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses about the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country, and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. One hundred thirty-eight RCTs were left for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received scores of 0 or 1. Flow chart, effect size, allocation concealment, and sample size were more critical items, with 80% receiving a score of 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 15.0 ± 4.8 points, which represents 46.9% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among countries was observed (p&lt;0.001), as well as range of year (p&lt;0.001). Only 4.3% of the studies were judged as at low risk; 36.2% were classified as having unclear risk and 59.4% as having high risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating adhesive systems to the CONSORT is low with unclear/high risk of bias.

Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To answer the following PICO question (participant, intervention, comparator and outcome): Does flowable resin composite restorations compared with regular resin composites improve the marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration and retention rates of restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions [NCCLs] of adults?, through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

SOURCE

MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library and SIGLE were searched without restrictions, as well as the abstracts of the IADR, clinical trials registries, dissertations and theses in May 2016 (updated in April 2017).

STUDY SELECTION

We included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that answered the PICO question. RCTs were excluded if cavities other than NCCLs were treated; indirect restorations; polyacid-based resins instead of composite resins were employed, restorations in primary teeth and restorations were placed in carious cervical lesions. The risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Collaboration was applied in the eligible studies and the GRADE tool was used to assess the quality of the evidence.

DATA

After duplicates removal, 5137 articles were identified. After abstract and title screening, 8 studies remained. Six were at "unclear" risk of bias. The study follow-ups ranged from 1 to 3 years. No significant difference was observed between groups for loss of retention and marginal discoloration in all follow-ups. Better marginal adaptation was observed for restorations performed with flowable composites. At 1-year (risk ratio=0.27 [0.10 to 0.70]) and 3-year (risk ratio=0.34 [0.17 to 0.71]) follow-ups, flowable composites showed a risk 73% and 66% lower than regular composites for lack of adaptation, respectively. The evidence was graded as moderate quality for loss or retention at 3 years due to risk of bias and low and very low for all other outcomes due to risk of bias, imprecision and inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

We have moderate confidence that the resin composite viscosity does not influence the retention rates at 3 years. Similar marginal discoloration and better marginal adaptation was observed for flowable composites but the quality of evidence is doubtful. (PROSPERO CRD42015019560).

Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the 6-year clinical performance of Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond adhesives in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

This was a randomized controlled clinical trial where 39 participants met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were enrolled. Lesions restored were notch-shaped NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, NCCLs were roughened. No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturer's instructions and the NCCLs were restored with composite resin (TPH(3)). Restorations were finished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, and secondary caries using modified USPHS criteria. Descriptive statistics were performed. Logistic regression models were performed for each outcome separately with compound symmetry correlation structure where teeth were clustered by participants. All analyses were conducted using SAS 9.2.

RESULTS

The 6-year recall rate was 77.5% of the restorations (76.9% of the participants). No statistical differences were found between adhesives for retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. Restorations failed by loss of retention (16.7%, 27.6%, and 11.8% of Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond restorations, respectively) and marginal discoloration (7.4% of Xeno IV restorations). For every unit increase in restoration volume it was 1.31 (95%C.I. 1.05, 1.63, P=0.01) times more likely that the restoration retention would be maintained.

SIGNIFICANCE

The tested adhesive systems presented similar clinical performance after six years of service, with annual failure rates of 2.8%, 4.6%, and 2.0% for Xeno IV, Xeno III, and XP Bond, respectively.

Clinical Performance of Composite Restorations with Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Lining in Root Surface Carious Lesions

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of composite restorations in root surface carious lesions with or without resin-modified glass ionomer lining.

Methods and Materials: The sample consisted of 25 female and 14 male patients. A maximum of four lesions were included for each patient. After caries removal, the depth, length, and width of the cavity were measured. Lesions in the same patient were randomly divided into two groups, and the dentin surfaces were either lined with resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Glass Liner II) or left as they were. Self-etch adhesive (All Bond SE) was applied and cured for 20 seconds. All cavities were restored with nanohybrid anterior composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). Two experienced clinicians evaluated the marginal adaptation (retention) rate, anatomic form, secondary caries, sensitivity, and marginal staining of restorations at the end of the first week and at six, 12, and 18 months posttreatment. The data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and two-way repeated measures tests.

Results: At the end of 18 months, a total of five lined and three unlined restorations were lost. There was no significant relationship between marginal adaptation and cavity lining at six, 12, and 18 months (p&gt;0.05). Although marginal stainings of restorations were mostly localized, the total number of localized or generalized discolored restorations increased with time (p&lt;0.001). There was a statistically significant relationship between marginal staining and smoking (p&gt;0.05). There was no significant relationship between marginal staining and frequency of toothbrushing at six, 12, and 18 months (p=0.286, p=0.098, and p=0.408, respectively).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, both restorative applications were accepted as clinically appropriate.

Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to comparatively assess the seven-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive with resin composite (RC) and resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) restorations in noncarious cervical lesions.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

One operator placed 70 restorations (35 restorations in each group) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. The restorations were directly assessed by two independent examiners, using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline and 6, 12, 24, 60, and 84 months. The obtained data were tabulated and statistically analyzed using the Fisher and McNemar tests. A difference was significant if p<0.05.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were available for recall after seven years (66.6%), and 25 RC and 26 RMGI restorations out of 70 restorations were evaluated. Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners (κ≥0.85). Alfa and bravo scores were classified as clinically acceptable. The McNemar test detected significant differences within RC restorations between baseline and seven-year evaluations for anatomic form, marginal integrity, and retention (p<0.05). For RMGI restorations, a significant difference was identified for marginal integrity (p<0.05). As to material comparison, the Fisher exact showed a better retention performance for RMGI restorations than for RC restorations (p<0.05). Twelve composite restorations were dislodged (52.0% retention) and three ionomer restorations were lost (88.5% retention). The cumulative success rate for RC and RMGI was 30% and 58.1%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After seven years of service, the clinical performance of RMGI restorations was superior to that of the adhesive system/resin composite restorations in this study.

Clinical Performance of One-step Self-etch Adhesives Applied Actively in Cervical Lesions: 24-month Clinical Trial

Objectives

To evaluate the clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) under active or passive application mode.

Methods

Thirty-one patients with four NCCL were enrolled in this study. One hundred and twenty-four restorations were placed according to one of the following conditions: 1) Adper Prompt L-Pop (AP), active application (APA); 2) AP, passive application (APP); 3) Xeno III (XE), active application (XEA), or 4) XE, passive application (XEP). The restorations were evaluated by the FDI World Dental Federation criteria at baseline and after six, 12, and 24 months of clinical service. The effects of adhesive, mode of application, and recall period were assessed via mixed generalized linear model (α=0.05).

Results

The adhesive AP and the passive application mode showed significantly higher marginal staining than did XE and active application, respectively (p&lt;0.05). With regard to the retention rates, the active application mode yielded higher retention rates at the 24-month recall compared to the passive application, regardless of the material. The individual retention rates (95% confidence interval) of both adhesives in the active application mode were the same, 96.8% (83.8-99.4%), while in the passive application rates were 87.1% (71.2-94.9%) and 80.7% (63.7-90.8%) for XE and AP, respectively.

Conclusions

The active application improved the retention rates of both adhesives after 24 months and minimized the marginal staining at enamel margins.

A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Purpose

To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of a multimode adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SU, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.

Materials and Methods

Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm, etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd, etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set, selective enamel etching; and SE, self-etch. The composite resin, Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 18 months, using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05).

Results

Five restorations (SE: 3; Set: 1; and ERm: 1) were lost after 18 months (p&gt;0.05 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in four and 10% of the restorations evaluated (p&gt;0.05), respectively, for USPHS and FDI criteria. Nine restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS criteria and 38%, 40%, 36%, and 44% for groups ERm, ERd, Set, and SE, respectively, when the FDI criteria were applied (p&gt;0.05). However, when semiquantitative scores (or SQUACE) for marginal adaptation were used, SE resulted in a significantly greater number of restorations, with more than 30% of the total length of the interface showing marginal discrepancy (28%) in comparison with the other groups (8%, 6%, and 8%, respectively, for ERm, ERd, and Set).

Conclusions

The clinical retention of the multimode adhesive at 18 months does not depend on the bonding strategy. The only differences between strategies were found for the parameter marginal adaptation, for which the FDI criteria were more sensitive than the USPHS criteria.

One-Year Evaluation of a Simplified Ethanol-Wet Bonding Technique: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations using a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (TSER), a one-step self-etching adhesive (OSSE), and a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique (EWBT) prior to the application of a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions. Ninety-three restorations (31 for each group) were placed in 17 patients by a single operator. No cavity preparation was performed. After 6 and 12 months, the restorations were assessed by two previously trained examiners using modified Ryge criteria for retention (kappa=1.00) and marginal adaptation/staining (kappa=0.81), and the results were analyzed by Fisher's exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests, respectively. No significant differences were observed among groups at the 6- and 12-month time points for any of the assessed criteria (p≥0.05). The intra-group analysis performed by Cochran's test (for retention) and Wilcoxon test (for marginal adaptation/staining) revealed significant differences between the baseline/12-month time intervals in marginal adaptation in OSSE (p=0.0180) and in marginal staining in TSER (p=0.0117). The survival analysis for retention criteria performed using a log-rank test did not show significant differences (p>0.05). The restorations placed using the simplified EWBT performed equally well as the other adhesive strategies employed.

Two-year Clinical Performance of Self-etching Adhesive Systems in Composite Restorations of Anterior Teeth

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of Class III, IV, and V composite restorations using a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (2-ERA) and three one-step self-etching adhesive systems (1-SEAs).

Material and Methods

Two hundred Class III, IV, and V composite restorations were placed into 50 patients. Each patient received four composite restorations (Amaris, Voco), and these restorations were bonded with one of three 1-SEAs (Futurabond M, Voco; Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray; and Optibond All-in-One, Kerr) or one 2-ERA (Adper Single Bond 2/3M ESPE). The four adhesive systems were evaluated at baseline and after 24 months using the following criteria: restoration retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, postoperative sensitivity and preservation of tooth vitality. After two years, 162 restorations were evaluated in 41 patients. Data were analyzed using the χ2 test (p&lt;0.05).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the 2-ERA and the 1-SEAs regarding the evaluated parameters (p&gt;0.05).

Conclusion

The 1-SEAs showed good clinical performance at the end of 24 months.

Nanofilled composite restorations with different adhesives strategies: clinical cases

The esthetic procedures with composites are widely applied, both to posterior and anterior teeth to restore caries cavities, to replace failed restorations, or to make cosmetic procedures. The materials selected to each case may make the difference in the clinical result. This paper presents two clinical cases made with a nanofilled composite resin system used in different bond strategies. In the first, a wide posterior class I restoration, the self-etching strategy was used. The second, an esthetic anterior restoration, was made using the prior etching with phosphoric acid and a hydrophobic adhesive.

Clinical effectiveness of contemporary dentin bonding agents

Aim:

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the clinical effectiveness of contemporary resin-based dentin bonding agents primarily focussing on the longevity of restoration.

Materials and Methods:

The literature published from June 2004 up to September 2010 was reviewed for clinical trials that tested the effectiveness of dentin bonding agents in the longevity of noncarious class V restoration. Results of each study reported using the USPHS criteria for clinical assessment of restoration were included and tabulated. The American Dental Association guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesives were used as a reference to compare the performance of individual bonding agents. Kruskal–Wallis followed by Mann–Whitney U was done to compare the mean Alfa score percentage for the three categories of bonding systems [etch-and-rinse (ER), self-etch primer (SEP), and self-etch-adhesive (SEA)].

Results:

A comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages revealed no difference between the ER, SEP, and SEA categories of bonding systems except for marginal adaptation where ER was found to be superior to SEA.

Conclusion:

The clinical effectiveness of resin-based bonding agents is comparable among the three categories.