OBJECTIVES: Despite representing an important component of current dental adhesives, HEMA has been said to negatively influence the long-term stability of adhesion to dentine and enamel. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives. METHODS:Thirty patients had 175 non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite (Gradia Direct Anterior, GC) using either the HEMA-rich adhesive Clearfil Tri-S Bond (C3S; Kuraray) or the HEMA-free adhesive G-Bond (GB; GC). The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months regarding retention, caries recurrence, marginal integrity and discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. The data were statistically analysed with GEE and McNemar tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: The recall rate at 6 and 12 months was 100% and decreased to 96.7% at 24 and 36 months. At 3 years, the retention rate was 93.8% for C3S and 98.8% for GB (p=0.14). A pairwise comparison showed no significant differences between the two adhesives for all the parameters evaluated, irrespective of the recall (p>0.05). After 3 years, both adhesives presented an increase in the percentage of clinically acceptable marginal discoloration (C3S: 32.9% and GB: 26.8%) normally associated to clinically acceptable marginal defects (C3S: 35.8% and GB: 26.5%). Only 1 dentine margin of a GB restoration presented a severe marginal defect (1.2%) and 1 C3S restoration presented caries recurrence. The overall 3-year clinical success rate was 92.6% for C3S and 97.6% for GB (p=0.16). CONCLUSION: Both one-step self-etch adhesives presented an equally favourable clinical effectiveness at 3 years. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: HEMA is a monomer frequently present in dental adhesives in order to increase their wettability and hydrophilicity. However, this monomer negatively influences hydrolytic stability and durability of the adhesive interface complex. In this 3-year clinical trial no significant difference in bonding effectiveness was noticed between a HEMA-rich and HEMA-free one-step adhesive.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Despite representing an important component of current dental adhesives, HEMA has been said to negatively influence the long-term stability of adhesion to dentine and enamel. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives. METHODS: Thirty patients had 175 non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite (Gradia Direct Anterior, GC) using either the HEMA-rich adhesive Clearfil Tri-S Bond (C3S; Kuraray) or the HEMA-free adhesive G-Bond (GB; GC). The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months regarding retention, caries recurrence, marginal integrity and discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. The data were statistically analysed with GEE and McNemar tests (p<0.05). RESULTS: The recall rate at 6 and 12 months was 100% and decreased to 96.7% at 24 and 36 months. At 3 years, the retention rate was 93.8% for C3S and 98.8% for GB (p=0.14). A pairwise comparison showed no significant differences between the two adhesives for all the parameters evaluated, irrespective of the recall (p>0.05). After 3 years, both adhesives presented an increase in the percentage of clinically acceptable marginal discoloration (C3S: 32.9% and GB: 26.8%) normally associated to clinically acceptable marginal defects (C3S: 35.8% and GB: 26.5%). Only 1 dentine margin of a GB restoration presented a severe marginal defect (1.2%) and 1 C3S restoration presented caries recurrence. The overall 3-year clinical success rate was 92.6% for C3S and 97.6% for GB (p=0.16). CONCLUSION: Both one-step self-etch adhesives presented an equally favourable clinical effectiveness at 3 years. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: HEMA is a monomer frequently present in dental adhesives in order to increase their wettability and hydrophilicity. However, this monomer negatively influences hydrolytic stability and durability of the adhesive interface complex. In this 3-year clinical trial no significant difference in bonding effectiveness was noticed between a HEMA-rich and HEMA-free one-step adhesive.