Literature DB >> 21942235

Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results.

J Perdigão1, M Dutra-Corrêa, C H C Saraceni, M T Ciaramicoli, V H Kiyan, C S Queiroz.   

Abstract

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: With Institutional Review Board approval, 39 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) were enrolled in this study. A total of 125 NCCLs were selected and randomly assigned to four groups: 1) a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (MP, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA); 2) a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, Adper Single Bond Plus (SB, 3M ESPE); 3) a two-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Scotchbond SE (SE, 3M ESPE); and 4) a one-step self-etch adhesive, Adper Easy Bond (EB, 3M ESPE). A nanofilled composite resin was used for all restorations. Restorations were evaluated at six months and 18 months using modified U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) parameters.
RESULTS: At six months after initial placement, 107 restorations (85.6% recall rate) were evaluated. At 18 months, 94 restorations (75.2% recall rate) were available for evaluation. The 6 mo/18 mo overall retention rates (%) were 100/90.9 for MP; 100/91.7 for SB; 100/90.9 for SE; and 96.4/92.3 for EB with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall. Sensitivity to air decreased significantly for all adhesives from the preoperative to the postoperative stage and was stable thereafter. Interfacial staining did not change statistically from baseline to six months; however, interfacial staining at the enamel margins was statistically worse at 18 months than at baseline for the two self-etch adhesives EB and SE. Marginal adaptation was statistically worse at 18 months compared with baseline only for EB. This tendency was already significant at the six-month recall.
CONCLUSION: Although 18-month retention was similar for the different adhesion strategies, enamel marginal deficiencies were more prevalent for the self-etch adhesives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21942235     DOI: 10.2341/11-222-C

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oper Dent        ISSN: 0361-7734            Impact factor:   2.440


  18 in total

1.  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.

Authors:  David Cardoso Sandes Farias; Guilherme Carpena Lopes; Luiz Narciso Baratieri
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-01-23       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 2.  Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Fabiana Dias Simas Dreweck; Adrieli Burey; Marcelo de Oliveira Dreweck; Alessandro D Loguercio; Alessandra Reis
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  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.

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

4.  The influence of different placement techniques on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin composites placed in Class II cavities: a 4-year randomized controlled clinical study.

Authors:  Nazire Nurdan Çakır Kılınç; Sezer Demirbuğa
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 3.606

5.  Five-year clinical performance of a silorane- vs a methacrylate-based composite combined with two different adhesive approaches.

Authors:  Bruno Baracco; M Victoria Fuentes; Laura Ceballos
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2015-09-21       Impact factor: 3.573

6.  Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions.

Authors:  Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Jan De Munck; R Banu Ermis; Marleen Peumans; Bart Van Meerbeek
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-08-15       Impact factor: 3.573

7.  The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up.

Authors:  Nazire Nurdan Çakır; Sezer Demirbuga
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2018-10-27       Impact factor: 3.573

8.  Randomized Clinical Trial of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: Effect of Adhesive System after Three Years.

Authors:  Secil Bektaş Donmez; Melek D Turgut; Serdar Uysal; Pinar Ozdemir; Meryem Tekcicek; Brigitte Zimmerli; Adrian Lussi
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2016-10-19       Impact factor: 3.411

9.  Erosive cola-based drinks affect the bonding to enamel surface: an in vitro study.

Authors:  Leslie Caroll Casas-Apayco; Vanessa Manzini Dreibi; Ana Carolina Hipólito; Márcia Sirlene Zardin Graeff; Daniela Rios; Ana Carolina Magalhães; Marília Afonso Rabelo Buzalaf; Linda Wang
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin - a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Andreia Assis Carvalho; Murillo Martins Leite; Jessica Karla Maia Zago; Carla Aparecida Bernardes Costa Meneses Nunes; Terezinha de Jesus Esteves Barata; Gersinei Carlos de Freitas; Érica Miranda de Torres; Lawrence Gonzaga Lopes
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.757

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.