An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions
- 318 Downloads
The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period.
Materials and methods
Eighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers’ instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests.
The 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
The three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs.
Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.
KeywordsUniversal adhesive Non-carious cervical lesion Selective etching
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 3.Nakaayashi N, Pashley DH (1998) Hybridization of dental hard tissues quintessence publishing. Chicago:65–67Google Scholar
- 4.Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28(3):215–235Google Scholar
- 12.Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2005) A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 21(4):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.008 Google Scholar
- 14.Alex G (2015) Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent 36(1):15–26Google Scholar
- 17.Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO (1994) Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 22(4):195–207Google Scholar
- 19.Tyas MJ (1995) The class V lesion--aetiology and restoration. Aust Dent J 40(3):167–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1995.tb05631.x Google Scholar
- 20.Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJ, Wilson NH (1999) The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J 49(3):139–143. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1875-595X.1999.tb00898.x Google Scholar
- 36.Moura SK, Pelizzaro A, Dal Bianco K, de Goes MF, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Grande RH (2006) Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent 8(2):75–83Google Scholar
- 37.Soderholm KJ, Ottenga M, Nimmo S (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions. Am J Dent 26(1):28–32Google Scholar
- 38.Chiba A, Zhou J, Nakajima M, Tan J, Tagami J, Scheffel DL, Hebling J, Agee KA, Breschi L, Gregoire G, Jang SS, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2016) The effects of ethanol on the size-exclusion characteristics of type I dentin collagen to adhesive resin monomers. Acta Biomater 33:235–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actbio.2016.01.040 Google Scholar
- 39.Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, Coutinho E, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28(26):3757–3785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044 Google Scholar
- 40.Bail M, Malacarne-Zanon J, Silva SM, Anauate-Netto A, Nascimento FD, Amore R, Lewgoy H, Pashley DH, Carrilho MR (2012) Effect of air-drying on the solvent evaporation, degree of conversion and water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive models. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23(3):629–638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-011-4541-y Google Scholar
- 41.Perdigao J, Frankenberger R (2001) Effect of solvent and rewetting time on dentin adhesion. Quintessence Int 32(5):385–390Google Scholar
- 43.Reis AF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg FA (2003) The effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives’ bond strength to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 28(6):700–706Google Scholar
- 46.Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Tay FR, Agee KA, Lee KW (2002) Solvation of dried dentin matrix by water and other polar solvents. Am J Dent 15(2):97–102Google Scholar
- 47.Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, de Carvalho RM, da Julio SM, Grande RH (2003) Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent 5(3):183–192Google Scholar
- 49.Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ, Mercante DE, Davidson JM (2005) Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as class V filling materials. Oper Dent 30(3):275–281Google Scholar