Clinical, double blind, randomized controlled trial of experimental adhesive protocols in caries-affected dentin
To evaluate the clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations regarding experimental and regular adhesive protocols in caries affected-dentin (CAD).
Material and methods
A total of 92 class I and class II cavities with carious lesions were selected and randomly assigned to the following groups: (1) bioactive glass-ceramic powder/two-step etch and rinse system, (2) control/two-step etch and rinse system, (3) bioactive glass-ceramic powder/two-step self-etching system, and (4) control/two-step self-etching system. Two operators carried out the adhesive protocols and restored the cavities with a nano-hybrid resin composite. Participants were followed up at 1 week and 6, 12, and 18 months for clinical evaluation performed by two blinded examiners and calibrated according to FDI criteria. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests with a confidence of 95%.
The clinical performance of resin composite restoration was not affected by the experimental use of an adhesive protocol including a bioactive glass-ceramic powder for 18 months post-procedure. However, there was a significant difference between group 2 and group 4 (p < 0.05) for marginal adaptation (18 months). Group 2 was significantly different from group 3 (p < 0.05) for fracture of material/retention (18 months) and marginal adaptation (1 week); group 2 showed a better performance.
Adhesive protocols can alter the clinical performance of posterior restorations in terms of marginal adaptation and the fracture of material/retention in CAD. Clinical significance: Adhesive protocols may influence the success of resin composite restorations in CAD; this is important because failure can lead to caries, re-incidence, and/or clinical re-work.
KeywordsBioactive glasses Caries-affected dentin Randomized controlled trial
This study was funded by the São Paulo Research Foundation - FAPESP (grant number 2010/12032-6) and Center for Research, Teaching and Innovation in Glass (CeRTEV)/CEPID grant number 2013/07793-6.
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 conducted 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.
- 1.Tyas MJ, Anusavice KJ, Frencken JE, Mount GJ (2000) Minimal intervention dentistry--a review. FDI Commission Project 1-97. Int Dent J 50:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1875-595X.2000.tb00540.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 2.FDI policy statement on Minimal Intervention Dentistry (MID) for managing dental caries: Adopted by the general assembly: September 2016, Poznan, Poland (2017). Int Dent J 67:6–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/idj.12308
- 25.Profeta AC, Mannocci F, Foxton RM, Thompson I, Watson TF, Sauro S (2012) Bioactive effects of a calcium/sodium phosphosilicate on the resin-dentine interface: a microtensile bond strength, scanning electron microscopy, and confocal microscopy study. Eur J Oral Sci 120:353–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00974.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 26.Sauro S, Watson TF, Thompson I, Banerjee A (2012) One-bottle self-etching adhesives applied to dentine air-abraded using bioactive glasses containing polyacrylic acid: an in vitro microtensile bond strength and confocal microscopy study. J Dent 40:896–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Martins CH, Carvalho TC, Souza MG, Ravagnani C, Peitl O, Zanotto ED et al (2011) Assessment of antimicrobial effect of Biosilicate® against anaerobic, microaerophilic and facultative anaerobic microorganisms. J Mater Sci Mater Med 22:1439–1446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10856-011-4330-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 36.Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M et al (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science committee project 2/98--FDI world dental federation study design (part I) and criteria for evaluation (part II) of direct and indirect restorations including onlays and partial crowns. J Adhes Dent 9 Suppl 1:121–147. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a19262
- 39.Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig 14:349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.Profeta AC, Mannocci F, Foxton R, Watson TF, Feitosa VP, De Carlo B et al (2013) Experimental etch-and-rinse adhesives doped with bioactive calcium silicate-based micro-fillers to generate therapeutic resin-dentin interfaces. Dent Mater 29:729–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 41.Sauro S, Watson TF, Thompson I, Toledano M, Nucci C, Banerjee A (2012) Influence of air-abrasion executed with polyacrylic acid-Bioglass 45S5 on the bonding performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Eur J Oral Sci 120:168–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2012.00939.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Boeckler A, Boeckler L, Eppendorf K, Schaller HG, Gernhardt CR (2012) A prospective, randomized clinical trial of a two-step self-etching vs two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and SEM margin analysis: four-year results. J Adhes Dent 14:585–592. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a27796 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar