Performance of self-cured versus light-cured universal adhesive in patients with non-carious cervical lesions: 18-month randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the clinical performance of self versus light-cured universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 18 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-eight NCCLs in 28 patients were divided into two equal groups; G1: self-cured universal adhesive (Palfique,Tokuyama,Japan) and G2: light-cured universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal,3 M ESPE,USA). Nanohybrid resin composite (Z350XT, 3 M ESPE, USA) was used as a final restoration. Evaluation for fracture, loss of retention, marginal adaptation and discoloration were done after 1 week, 6,12, and 18 months using FDI criteria. Postoperative sensitivity was assessed after 1 week. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests with statistical significance at (P ≤ 0.05) were used for intergroup comparison,while the intragroup one was performed using the Cochran's Q and Friedman's tests. Survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-meier and Log-rank test.

RESULTS

Both groups exhibited fracture and retention loss, however, there was statistically significant difference favoring the control group at 6 months (p = 0.0114,0.0016). For secondary outcomes, marginal adaptation and discoloration revealed no significant differences. For postoperative sensitivity, there was a significant difference favoring the control group (p = 0.0007, 0.0011). Palfique had 1.5 Relative-Risk (RR) after 6 months (95% CI 0.5659-4.2617; P = 0.3928) and 20% less risk of failure after 18 months (RR 0.8) (95% CI 0.4618-1.3858; P = 0.4260). Tested adhesives showed equal survival rate (P = 0.5685).

CONCLUSIONS

Both adhesives revealed similar clinical performance in restoring the NCCLs after 18 m, however, the early failure was more frequent in the self-cured universal adhesive.

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.

Effect of the Adhesive Strategy on Clinical Performance and Marginal Integrity of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions in a Randomized 36-Month Study

The effectiveness of a universal adhesive applied in three application modes for the preparation of Class V composite restorations was evaluated both clinically and by quantitative marginal analysis (QMA) over 36 months. In 50 patients, three (n = 21) or four (n = 29) non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) were restored with Venus® Diamond Flow (Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany). The adhesive iBond® Universal (iBU, Kulzer, Germany) was used in self-etch (SE), etch-and-rinse (ER), or selective-enamel-etch mode (SEE). The etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBondTM FL served as a control (OFL, Kerr GmbH, Herzogenrath, Germany). The restorations were clinically assessed (FDI criteria) at 14 days (BL), 6, 12, 24, and 36 months. Additionally, QMA was conducted on all restorations of 11 randomly selected patients. FDI criteria and marginal gap and perfect margin were compared between and within groups and recalls using McNemar, Wilcoxon, or Mann-Whitney U-tests (α = 0.05). Starting with 12 months, cumulative failure rates were lower in iBU-SE (0.0%, p = 0.016) and iBU-ER groups (2.1%, p = 0.07) compared to OFL (16.7%). At two years, iBU-SEE also showed fewer failures (0.0% SEE vs. 34.6% OFL, p = 0.016), as did iBU-SE compared to iBU-ER after 36 months (2.2 and 19.6%, p = 0.039). From BL, the iBU-SEE group always had the fewest marginal gaps and the highest percentage of perfect margins. From BL, iBU-SEE (0%, p = 0.008) and iBU-ER (0.2%, p = 0.027) showed significantly fewer marginal gaps compared to OFL (2.5%) and more perfect margins were found with iBU-SEE starting at 6 months (p = 0.054). The SEE and ER modes ensured the most excellent marginal quality, with differences from the control appearing earlier with QMA than clinically. In restoring NCCls, iBU showed superior clinical performance over OFL, especially in modes SE and SEE.

Effect of adhesive strategy of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of adhesive strategy (total etch or self-etch) of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions.

DATA SOURCE

A search was made in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web Of Science, Open Gray, Clinical Registries.

DATA SELECTION

Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials, studies on non-carious cervical lesions restored using Universal Adhesives, and studies in which universal adhesives have been used in total etch and self -etch strategies were included in this systematic review.

DATA EXTRACTION

A total of 17 articles were included in the systematic review and 13 in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical performance of NCCLs in terms of retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries and post-operative sensitivity at 18, 24, 36 month follow-up using USPHS as well as FDI criteria, separately.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Overall there was no significant difference between total etch and self etch adhesive strategies for any of the five outcome measures using either the FDI or the USPHS criteria. p > 0.05, 95% CI, I² value of 0%. A strongly suspected publication bias in the retention domain was seen at 18 month follow up under FDI criteria.

CONCLUSION

Most universal adhesives show acceptable clinical performance. There is no significant effect of the adhesive strategy of universal adhesives on their clinical performance according to the results of our meta-analysis.

Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This is a double-blind, split-mouth, randomized clinical study that aims to evaluate the influence of bulk-fill composite packaging presented in syringes (BSy) and capsules (BCa), and the effect of selective enamel etching (SEE) on the clinical performance of class I and II bulk-fill resin composite restorations after 24 months.

METHODOLOGY

A total of 295 class I or class II restorations were performed on 70 patients. One universal adhesive was applied in all restorations. SEE was used in 148 restorations and self-etching mode (SET) in 147 restorations. After the adhesive application, cavities were restored with Filtek Bulk-fill Posterior Restorative in syringes (BSy), Filtek One Bulk-fill in capsules (BCa), or Filtek Supreme Ultra in syringes with the incremental technique (In). All restorations were evaluated using the FDI criteria after one week and after six, 12, and 24 months. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Pearson's Chi-square test were used (α=0.05) for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

After 24 months, 62 patients were evaluated and four restorations were lost due to fracture (one for SEEBSy, two for SEEIn, and one for SETIn). No significant differences in the fracture and retention rate were found between groups (p>0.05). SEE showed significantly fewer marginal adaptation defects than SET (p<0.05). BCa and BSy groups showed fewer marginal discrepancies compared to In (p<0.05). Restorations performed with BCa showed less color mismatch than BSy or In (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Although all restorations exhibited satisfactory clinical performance after 24 months of clinical service, the clinical behavior of class I and II restorations' improved when performed with a bulk-fill composite in capsules, mainly when associated with a universal adhesive applied with SEE.

Efficacy of adhesive strategies for restorative dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials over 12 months of follow-up

PURPOSE

The efficacy of etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols for universal adhesives in follow-ups of over 12 months was compared in a network meta-analysis.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 1998 to 2022 that compared marginal staining, marginal adaptation, retention and fractures, post-operative sensitivity, or recurrence of caries that took place over 12-months post-restoration were selected. A network meta-analysis determined the performance of each adhesive protocol.

RESULTS

After screening 981 articles, 16 RCTs were subjected to data extraction. Of which, 674 patients with 2816 restorations, were included in the network meta-analysis. The pooled risk of marginal discoloration following self-etching was significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse at over 12, 24, and 36 months, which was time-dependent. The pooled risks of unfavorable marginal adaptation and unfavorable retention and fractures following self-etching were also significantly higher than that following etch-and-rinse, with the rates of unfavorable retention and fractures in non-carious cervical lesions increasing in a time-dependent manner. The pooled risks of marginal discoloration, unfavorable marginal adaptation, retention and fractures were similar between etch-and-rinse and selective enamel-etching protocols. Post-operative hypersensitivity and recurrence of caries were not significantly different among etch-and-rinse, selective enamel-etching, and self-etching protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

In follow-ups over 12 months, esthetic and functional outcomes of restorations completed with an etch-and-rinse adhesive protocol were superior to the ones achieved with a self-etching strategy without selective enamel-etching. Selective enamel etching is recommended for self-etching systems. Biological responses were similar for all three adhesive strategies.

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.

Impact of cleansing protocols to remove endodontic sealer residues on the adhesive interface: Bonding with universal adhesive systems

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cleansing protocols to remove sealer residues using different cleaning strategies and the effect of bond strength of two universal adhesives to dentin impregnated with epoxy resin-based sealer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty bovine dentin specimens were impregnated with epoxy resin-based sealer containing calcium hydroxide (Sealer Plus) and submitted to cleansing protocols (n = 10): negative control (NC), positive control (PC), 95% ethanol (ET), xylol (XI), and amyl acetate (AA). Specimens were evaluated by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Other 100 specimens were submitted to the same protocols (n = 20). Each protocol was divided into subgroups (n = 10) according to the universal adhesive system used: Scotchbond Universal (SU); Ambar Universal (AU). Bond strength was evaluated by micro-shear bond test (μSBT). Persistence of residues data were assessed with Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests. μSBT data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA (α = 5%).

RESULTS

ET presented higher persistence of residues compared to AA and XI (p < 0.05). AA and XI were similar from each other (p > 0.05). AU and SU presented similar μSBT values, regardless of the cleansing solution (p > 0.05). SU-NC presented the highest μSBT among all conditions (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The bond strength of universal adhesives was not affected by different amounts of sealer residues after different cleaning protocols.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Non-polar substances such as amyl acetate and xylol are effective for removing residues from epoxy resin-based endodontic sealers.

36-Month Randomized Clinical Trial Evaluation of Preheated and Room Temperature Resin Composite

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the effect of preheating resin composites (RCs) on the clinical performance of class I restorations during a 36-month period using a split-mouth, double-blinded randomized design.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A total of 35 patients were selected. Every patient received one pair of class I nanofilled resin composite (RC, Filtek Z350 XT) posterior restorations (n=70). One side of the mouth received preheated composites; on the other side, the composite was placed in a nonheated state following the manufacturer's instructions. These restorations were evaluated at 1-week (baseline), 12-months, 24-months, and 36-months using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria. The statistical analyses were also performed using the Wilcoxon and Friedman tests with the level of significance set at 0.05.

RESULTS

After 36 months, 33 patients attended the recall visits, and 66 restorations were evaluated. The Friedman and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed insignificant differences between both groups (p>0.05) for all FDI parameters. However, a significant difference was detected for staining as a criterion at 36 months (p=0.01). Moreover, a significant difference in the staining was detected when the baseline and 36 months were compared in the nonheated RC group (p=0.001). For esthetic, functional, and biological properties, the nonheated composite exhibited 93.9%, 100%, and 100% of the clinically accepted scores, respectively, and the preheated group presented 100% for all properties. Four restorations had postoperative sensitivity at baseline for nonheated (11.4%) and five for preheated (14.2%), but the postoperative sensitivity scores were considered highly acceptable at 12-, 24-, and 36-months.

CONCLUSIONS

After 36 months, preheated nanofilled RCs showed an acceptable clinical performance similar to that of the nonheated ones in class I restorations, but with better resistance to marginal staining.

Bonding performance and ultramorphology of the resin-dentine interface of contemporary universal adhesives

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at evaluating the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and the resin-dentine ultramorphology (24 h and 10 months ageing) of contemporary universal adhesives applied in self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (ER) mode.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-four sound human molars were collected and randomly allocated in 4 main experimental groups (n = 16) according to the adhesive system employed and subsequently divided into two subgroups depending on their application mode SE or ER (n = 8): ZipBond X (ZBX-SE; ZBX-ER), Prime and Bond Active (PBA-SE; PBA-ER), Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CBQ-SE; CBQ-ER) or Scotchbond Universal (SCH-SE; SCH-ER). The specimens were cut into sticks with a cross-sectional area of approximately 0.9 mm² and subjected to μTBS testing at 24 h or after 10 months of ageing in artificial saliva (AS). Five representative fractured specimens from each group were analysed using field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM). Resin-dentine slabs (Ø 0.9mm²) from each experimental group were immersed in Rhodamine B and subsequently analysed using confocal microscopy analysis (CLSM). The μTBS results were analysed using a two-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple-comparison test (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

ZBX, PBA and SCH exhibited greater μTBS values than CQB at 24 h in both SE and ER modes (p < 0.05). CQB showed a significant decrease in μTBS values after ageing both when used in SE and ER mode (p < 0.05). ZBX-ER exhibited no significant differences in the μTBS test after ageing (p > 0.05), while a significant drop in μTBS was seen in SCH-ER and APB-ER after 10-month ageing (p < 0.05). Clear signs of degradation were evident in the resin-dentine interface created with CQB regardless of the application mode or the ageing time. In APB-ER and SCH-ER groups, such signs of degradation were evident after ageing in AS. ZBX showed slight dye infiltration both when used in ER and SE mode.

CONCLUSIONS

The long-term bonding performance of modern universal adhesives is usually influenced by the adhesive strategy employed; self-etching application should be prioritised during dentine bonding. Moreover, the use of shortened bonding protocols may compromise the quality of the resin-dentine interface and the bonding performance of most modern universal adhesives.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of etch-and-rinse bonding procedures, as well as "shortened" application protocols should be eluded when using modern universal adhesives in dentine. However, new generation universal adhesives based on innovative chemical formulations may probably allow clinicians to achieve long-term bonding performance with such simplified system also when employed in ER mode.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the influence of different application strategies on the clinical behavior of an MDP-free universal adhesive placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over the course of 36 months.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-one patients participated in this study (N = 31). One hundred twenty-four restorations were assigned to four groups: We used the self-etch strategy on groups with (SE-et) and without (SET) selective enamel etching, and the etch-and-rinse strategy on groups with dry (ER-D) and moist (ER-M) dentin. After applying the MDP-free universal adhesive (Xeno Select universal adhesive, Dentsply Sirona), cavities were filled using EvoluX composite resin (Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 36 months according to World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Friedman's repeated-measures analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We evaluated the 31 patients after 36 months. Forty-two restorations were lost (ER-D = 5, ER-M = 7, SE-et = 14, SET = 16). The 36-month retention/fracture rates (95% confidence interval) were 83.9% for ER-D, 77.4% for ER-M, 54.9% for SE-et, and 48.4% for SET. ER strategy showed better retention rate than SE strategy (p < 0.05). Thirty-four restorations (ER-D = 6, ER-M = 10, SE-et = 10, SET = 8) showed marginal staining per FDI criteria and 15 restorations (ER-D = 1, ER-M = 2, SE-et = 6, SET = 6) showed marginal staining per USPHS criteria. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or recurrence of caries.

CONCLUSION

The retention rate of Xeno Select universal adhesive was poor, mainly in the self-etch strategy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

REBEC clinical registry under protocol RBR-4wh4sh.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

MDP-free universal adhesive behavior depends on the bonding strategy used.

Challenging the Concept that OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond in NCCLs Are Gold Standard Adhesives: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The following PICO (Patient/Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcomes) question was proposed: "Are retention rates of composite resin restorations in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) when using adhesives considered "gold standard" (OptiBond FL and Clearfil SE Bond) higher than those obtained with other adhesives brands"?

METHODS

A search was performed in February 2019 (updated in November 2019) in the PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, BBO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Grey Literature, and IADR abstracts (1990-2018); unpublished and ongoing trial registries, dissertations, and theses were also searched. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in NCCLs that compared either OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond adhesive with other commercially available adhesives were included. The risk of bias (RoB) was applied by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A meta-analysis was performed for retention rates at different follow-up times using a random effects model for both the adhesives. Heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) assessed the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

After removal of duplicates and noneligible articles, 25 studies remained for qualitative synthesis, as one study was common to the two adhesives, of which 9 studies were used for the OptiBond FL meta-analysis and 14 for the Clearfil SE Bond meta-analysis. No significant differences were observed for retention rates in follow-up periods of 12-24 months (p=0.97), 36-48 months (p=0.72), or 108-156 months (p=0.73) for OptiBond FL; and for 12-24 months (p=0.10) and 36-48 months (p=0.17) for Clearfil SE Bond. A significant difference was only found for OptiBond FL at 60-96 months (p=0.02), but only three studies were included in this meta-analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence from available RCTs conducted in NCCLs that compared OptiBond FL or Clearfil SE Bond does not support the widespread concept that these adhesives are better than any other competitive brands available in the dental market.

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.

Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial

Objective:

To evaluate non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) restored with different adhesion strategies.

Methodology:

This is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth study. An adhesive restorative system (Single Bond Universal/Filtek Z350XT – SBU) was evaluated both without and with selective enamel conditioning (E-SBU), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (Vitremer; RMGIC), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid pretreatment (EDTA; E-RMGIC). In total, 200 restorations, placed in 50 patients, were evaluated at baseline and at a 3-year follow-up using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analyzed using the two-proportion equality test, multinomial logistic regression, Wilcoxon test, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves.

Results:

In total, 42 (84%) patients returned for the 3-year follow-up. SBU showed restoration losses statistically different from RMGIC. Retention was also statistically different in SBU between baseline and the 3-year follow-up. Marginal defects and surface texture were statistically significant for all groups in the period studied, except for the surface texture of SBU and the marginal integrity in E-RMGIC. We observed no statistically significant difference in wear, secondary caries, anatomical form, surface staining, and color over time. Recession degree was the only factor to influence retention rates. Cumulative survival (%) was 89, 98, 98, and 95.3, for SBU, SE-SBU, RMGIC, and E-RMGIC, respectively, without significant differences among them. There was a statistically significant difference between survival curves; however, multiple comparison procedures found no statistical differences.

Conclusion:

Selective enamel etching affected the retention of non-carious cervical restorations. Adhesion using EDTA and resin-modified glass-ionomer cements delayed marginal defects over time. The degree of gingival recession influenced retention rates. Resin composite restorations showed initial marginal defects, and ionomer restorations, reduced surface luster. EDTA pre-treatment followed by resin-modified glass-ionomer cements may be a promising adhesion strategy for NCCL 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.

Clinical behavior of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

This randomized, double-blind clinical trial, , evaluated the behavior of two universal adhesives used in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch (SE) approach in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).

METHODS

Two hundred and eleven NCCLs were selected in 54 participants and randomly allocated into four experimental groups: Scotchbond Universal Adhesive - SBU (3M Oral Care) and Prime & Bond Elect - PB (Dentsply Sirona) used in ER and SE modes. Two trained operators placed all resin composite restorations (Filtek Z250, 3M Oral Care). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months using both FDI and USPHS modified criteria by a blinded calibrated examiner. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U non-parametric tests were used to compare the restoration failures among experimental groups.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were found among groups regarding failures (p=0.000 for both FDI and USPHS criteria). PB-SE presented more failures (p<0.05) than other experimental groups. No significant difference was found between any other pair of groups (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The etch and rinse approach affected the clinical performance of Prime and Bond Elect. For this material, the self-etch approach generated lower criteria scores after a six-month follow-up. The bonding strategy did not influence Scotchbond Universal Adhesive clinical performance. (RBR-2GQMVF) CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical behavior of mild universal adhesive Prime & Bond Elect depends on the bonding strategy. The etch-and-rinse approach is recommended for this adhesive system. Scotchbond Universal Adhesive can be used in both bonding strategies without impairing clinical performance.

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.

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.

Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the five-year clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU; 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.

METHODS

Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: SU-ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; SU-ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; SU-Set: selective enamel etching; and SU-SE: self-etch. A nanofilled composite resin was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 5 years using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The survival rates (retention/fractures) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. For the secondary outcomes, Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank was applied (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

After 5 years the recall rate was 86%. The retention/fracture rates were 93% for Erm and ERd, 88.4% for SEet and 81.4% for SE. A significant difference was observed for SE vs. ERd and SE vs. ERm (p = 0.01). Also, marginal discoloration and adaptation showed significant differences with ERm and ERd resulting in fewer marginal discrepancies than SE (p < 0.05).

SIGNIFICANCE

After 5 years, the clinical behavior of the universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse strategy was better when compared to the self-etch strategy. The use of selective enamel etching is highly recommended for the self-etch strategy. The FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria showed similar results after 5 years.

A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months.

SUMMARY

Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months.Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence.Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%-97%) for SEE, 94% (83%-97%) for SET, 94% (83%-97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%-97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time.Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group.

Margin Integrity of Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth

This in vitro study examined the margin integrity of sculptable and flowable bulk-fill resin composites in Class II cavities of primary molars. Standardized Class II cavities were prepared in human primary molars and restored with the following resin composite materials after application of a universal adhesive: a sculptable bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TEC) or Admira Fusion x-tra (AFX)), a flowable bulk-fill composite (Venus Bulk Fill (VBF) or SDR), or a conventional composite (Filtek Supreme XTE (FS)). The bulk-fill materials were applied in 4 mm layers, while the conventional composite was applied in either 2 mm (FS2, positive control) or 4 mm layers (FS4, negative control). The specimens were exposed to thermo-mechanical loading (TML) in a computer-controlled masticator. A quantitative margin analysis was performed both before and after TML using scanning electron microscopy, and the percentage of continuous margins (margin integrity) was statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). All composites showed a significant decline in margin integrity after TML. AFX exhibited the significantly highest margin integrity of all materials after TML (97.5 ± 2.3%), followed by FS2 (79.2 ± 10.8%), TEC (73.0 ± 9.1%), and FS4 (71.3 ± 14.6%). SDR (43.6 ± 22.3%) and VBF (25.0 ± 8.5%) revealed the lowest margin integrity. In conclusion, the tested sculptable bulk-fill materials show similar or better margin integrity in primary molars than the conventional resin composite placed in 2 mm increments.

Do Tooth- and Cavity-related Aspects of Noncarious Cervical Lesions Affect the Retention of Resin Composite Restorations in Adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis based on the following research question: do tooth- and cavity-related aspects of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) affect the retention of composite restorations?

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the retention rate of resin restorations in NCCLs were included for the identification and comparison of their characteristics. The search was conducted in PubMed and adapted for Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library, and System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE) without restrictions until July 2018. Unpublished and ongoing trial registries were also searched. The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used for assessing risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations: Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Using the random effects model, a meta-analysis was conducted for each aspect (arch distribution, tooth location, wear facets, dentin sclerosis, shape, size, depth, occluso-gingival distance, and margin location).

RESULTS

We retrieved 6738 articles. After removal of duplicates and nonrelevant articles, 24 RCTs remained. The anterior tooth location favored the retention rates of restoration of NCCLs (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.16). The presence of wear facets is a risk factor for the retention of restorations (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.99). The evidence was moderate for arch distribution and low or very low for all other factors because of heterogeneity, imprecision, and inconsistency.

CONCLUSION

The tooth location and the presence of wear facets can affect the retention of composite resins in NCCLs.

A 2-year clinical evaluation of direct and semi-direct resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomized clinical study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the 2-year success of resin composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using the direct or semi-direct techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty volunteers presenting with at least two NCCLs were included. Each participant received one restoration using the direct technique and the other using the semi-direct technique, totaling 60 restorations. Time for completing the treatment was computed. Assessments at baseline, 7 days, and 6, 12, and 24 months were performed using the modified United States Public Health Service criteria. Descriptive analysis was reported as a percentage of successful treatments. For inferential analysis, the Student t test was used to evaluate the differences between extension, depth, and time. The chi-square/Fisher tests were used to compare treatment success after each period (α = 0.05). The results were evaluated by using the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis.

RESULTS

Differences were detected regarding mean ± standard deviation time, in which direct and semi-direct procedures were accomplished in 21.8 (± 14.5) and 35.3 (± 19.9) min, respectively. Of the 60 restorations placed, 7 failed in the direct group while 8 failed in the semi-direct group up to 2 years. No differences were detected between restorative protocols. The cumulative survival was 88.5% and 88.4% for the direct technique and semi-direct techniques after 24 months, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The tested restorative protocols present similar results for NCCLs within the studied periods.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The semi-direct technique exhibited clinical performance similar to direct technique for NCCL, demonstrating an alternative for restorations of these lesions.