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

  • Taciana Marco Ferraz CaneppeleEmail author
  • Laura Célia Fernandes Meirelles
  • Rafael Santos Rocha
  • Lucélia Lemes Gonçalves
  • Daniele Mara Silva Ávila
  • Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva Gonçalves
  • Eduardo Bresciani
Original Article



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.


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.


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.


Non-carious cervical lesions Composite resin Semi-direct technique Randomized clinical trial 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Pecie R, Krejci I, Garcia-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions--a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 1: prevention. Am J Dent 24:49–56Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pegoraro LF, Scolaro JM, Conti PC, Telles D, Pegoraro TA (2005) Noncarious cervical lesions in adults: prevalence and occlusal aspects. J Am Dent Assoc 136:1694–1700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P (2008) Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent 36:759–766. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Borcic J, Anic I, Urek MM, Ferreri S (2004) The prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions in permanent dentition. J Oral Rehabil 31:117–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kreulen CM, Van 't Spijker A, Rodriguez JM, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NH, Bartlett DW (2010) Systematic review of the prevalence of tooth wear in children and adolescents. Caries Res 44:151–159. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, Mancl L (2002) Characteristics of noncarious cervical lesions: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 133:725–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rocha AC, Da Rosa W, Cocco AR, Da Silva AF, Piva E, Lund RG (2018) Influence of surface treatment on composite adhesion in noncarious cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent 43:508–519. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez CR (2010) Alternative technique for class V resin composite restorations with minimum finishing/polishing procedures. Oper Dent 35:375–379. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fahl N, Jr. (2015) Direct-indirect class V restorations: a novel approach for treating noncarious cervical lesions. J Esthet Restor Dent 27:267–284.
  10. 10.
    Correia AMO, Tribst JPM, Matos FS, Platt JA, Caneppele TMF, Borges ALS (2018) Polymerization shrinkage stresses in different restorative techniques for non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 76:68–74. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Magni E, Zhang L, Hickel R, Bossu M, Polimeni A, Ferrari M (2008) SEM and microleakage evaluation of the marginal integrity of two types of class V restorations with or without the use of a light-curable coating material and of polishing. J Dent 36:885–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2012) A 13-year clinical evaluation of two three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. Clin Oral Investig 16:129–137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pecie R, Krejci I, Garcia-Godoy F, Bortolotto T (2011) Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL)--a clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: restoration. Am J Dent 24:183–192Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Bmj 340:c869. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agha RA, Altman DG, Rosin D (2015) The SPIRIT 2013 statement--defining standard protocol items for trials. Int J Surg 13:288–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Julious SA (2004) Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med 23:1921–1986. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34:384–391. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Daudt E, Lopes GC, Vieira LC (2013) Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations? J Adhes Dent 15:27–32. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Stewardson D, Creanor S, Thornley P, Bigg T, Bromage C, Browne A, Cottam D, Dalby D, Gilmour J, Horton J, Roberts E, Westoby L, Burke T (2012) The survival of class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival. Br Dent J 212:E14. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kim KL, Namgung C, Cho BH (2013) The effect of clinical performance on the survival estimates of direct restorations. Restor Dent Endod 38:11–20. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lopes GC, Vieira LC, Araujo E, Bruggmann T, Zucco J, Oliveira G (2011) Effect of dentin age and acid etching time on dentin bonding. J Adhes Dent 13:139–145. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Opdam NJ, van de Sande FH, Bronkhorst E, Cenci MS, Bottenberg P, Pallesen U, Gaengler P, Lindberg A, Huysmans MC, van Dijken JW (2014) Longevity of posterior composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 93:943–949. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schroeder M, Correa IC, Bauer J, Loguercio AD, Reis A (2017) Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 62:36–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nakajima M, Sano H, Zheng L, Tagami J, Pashley DH (1999) Effect of moist vs. dry bonding to normal vs. caries-affected dentin with Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus. J Dent Res 78:1298–1303. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Borges AL, Borges AB, Xavier TA, Bottino MC, Platt JA (2014) Impact of quantity of resin, C-factor, and geometry on resin composite polymerization shrinkage stress in class V restorations. Oper Dent 39:144–151. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Braga RR, Yamamoto T, Tyler K, Boaro LC, Ferracane JL, Swain MV (2012) A comparative study between crack analysis and a mechanical test for assessing the polymerization stress of restorative composites. Dent Mater 28:632–641. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sarrett DC (2007) Prediction of clinical outcomes of a restoration based on in vivo marginal quality evaluation. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 1):117–120Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dejak B, Mlotkowski A (2015) A comparison of stresses in molar teeth restored with inlays and direct restorations, including polymerization shrinkage of composite resin and tooth loading during mastication. Dent Mater 31:e77–e87. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kramer N, Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R (2000) Adhesive luting of indirect restorations. Am J Dent 13:60D–76DGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2007) Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites. Dent Mater 23:749–754. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Barceleiro Mde O, De Miranda MS, Dias KR and Sekito T, Jr. (2003) Shear bond strength of porcelain laminate veneer bonded with flowable composite. Oper Dent 28:423–428Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Walter C, Kress E, Gotz H, Taylor K, Willershausen I, Zampelis A (2014) The anatomy of non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig 18:139–146. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carvalho RM, Manso AP, Geraldeli S, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2012) Durability of bonds and clinical success of adhesive restorations. Dent Mater 28:72–86. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Perdigao J (2010) Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater 26:e24–e37. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kim SY, Lee KW, Seong SR, Lee MA, Lee IB, Son HH, Kim HY, Oh MH, Cho BH (2009) Two-year clinical effectiveness of adhesives and retention form on resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34:507–515. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Santiago S, Franco EB, Lauris JR, Navarro MF (2014) Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 39:578–587. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kwong SM, Tay FR, Yip HK, Kei LH, Pashley DH (2000) An ultrastructural study of the application of dentine adhesives to acid-conditioned sclerotic dentine. J Dent 28:515–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farias DC, Lopes GC, Baratieri LN (2015) Two-year clinical performance of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: influence of subject’s age and dentin etching time. Clin Oral Investig 19:1867–1874. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Dijken JW, Pallesen U (2008) Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 24:915–922. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper M, Bresciani E, Goncalves S, Caneppele T (2019) Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent.
  41. 41.
    Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V (2010) Clinical performance of cervical restorations--a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 26:993–1000. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Grippo JO, Simring M, Schreiner S (2004) Attrition, abrasion, corrosion and abfraction revisited: a new perspective on tooth surface lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 135:1109–1118 quiz 1163-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Bayne S, Wilder AD, Sluder TB, Brunson WD (1991) Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations: a two-year clinical study. J Am Dent Assoc 122:41–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B (2014) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 30:1089–1103. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Perez Cdos R, Gonzalez MR, Prado NA, de Miranda MS, Macedo Mde A, Fernandes BM (2012) Restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: when, why, and how. Int J Dent 2012(687058):1–8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Owens BM, Johnson WW (2005) Effect of insertion technique and adhesive system on microleakage of class V resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 7:303–308Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Farias D, Walter R and Swift EJ, Jr. (2014) Critic appraisal. Postoperative sensitivity with indirect restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 26:208–213.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taciana Marco Ferraz Caneppele
    • 1
    Email author
  • Laura Célia Fernandes Meirelles
    • 1
  • Rafael Santos Rocha
    • 1
  • Lucélia Lemes Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Daniele Mara Silva Ávila
    • 1
  • Sérgio Eduardo de Paiva Gonçalves
    • 1
  • Eduardo Bresciani
    • 1
  1. 1.GAPEC - Academic Group of Clinical Research, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and TechnologySão Paulo State University (UNESP)São José dos CamposBrazil

Personalised recommendations