OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a filled (OptiBond Solo) and an unfilled (Prime & Bond 2.1) "one-bottle" adhesive in Class V restorations after 18 months of clinical service. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with non-carious cervical lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 101 lesions were restored using one of the adhesives and a hybrid composite resin. Enamel was not beveled, nor was any mechanical retention placed. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 6 and 18 months after placement using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: Cumulative 18-month retention rates were 93.6% for OptiBond Solo and 98.0% for Prime & Bond 2.1. The difference in retention rates was not statistically significant. For OptiBond Solo, the only notable problems were interfacial staining and marginal adaptation, both of which were less than ideal in 9% of restorations. Marginal problems were slightly less frequent for Prime & Bond 2.1 restorations, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both adhesives provided Class V retention rates exceeding the 18-month, full acceptance guidelines set by the American Dental Association. Any additional benefit provided by the use of a filled adhesive was not detected in this 18-month clinical trial.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the performance of a filled (OptiBond Solo) and an unfilled (Prime & Bond 2.1) "one-bottle" adhesive in Class V restorations after 18 months of clinical service. METHODS: Thirty-three patients with non-carious cervical lesions were enrolled in the study. A total of 101 lesions were restored using one of the adhesives and a hybrid composite resin. Enamel was not beveled, nor was any mechanical retention placed. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 6 and 18 months after placement using modified USPHS criteria. RESULTS: Cumulative 18-month retention rates were 93.6% for OptiBond Solo and 98.0% for Prime & Bond 2.1. The difference in retention rates was not statistically significant. For OptiBond Solo, the only notable problems were interfacial staining and marginal adaptation, both of which were less than ideal in 9% of restorations. Marginal problems were slightly less frequent for Prime & Bond 2.1 restorations, but the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both adhesives provided Class V retention rates exceeding the 18-month, full acceptance guidelines set by the American Dental Association. Any additional benefit provided by the use of a filled adhesive was not detected in this 18-month clinical trial.
Authors: Marcos O Barceleiro; Leticia S Lopes; Chane Tardem; Fernanda S Calazans; Thalita P Matos; Alessandra Reis; Abraham Lincoln Calixto; Alessandro D Loguercio Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-02-10 Impact factor: 3.573