STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Laboratory testing of enamel bevel reports many advantages; however clinical studies on this topic are scarce and controversial. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the effect of enamel bevel on the retention rates of composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with more than 20 teeth in occlusion and having at least two NCCLs participated in this study. The cavities were divided into non-beveled (control) and beveled (short bevel [45°, 1-2 mm long] prepared with a diamond bur) groups. The NCCLs were restored with the 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive ExciTE and the resin composite 4 Seasons (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eight-four restorations were placed and evaluated at baseline, after 6 and 12 months according to the modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS: The 12-month retention rates (95% confidence interval) for the beveled (91% [77-97%]) and non-beveled [88% (73-95%)] groups were similar. No significant differences were detected between groups in other criteria (Fisher test, p > 0.05). No significant differences were detected in the same group compared across different recall times (McNemar test, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Enamel beveling may not be clinically relevant for the retention of composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Beveling enamel margins may not be necessary in NCCL restorations restored with the 2-step etch-and-rinse systems.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM: Laboratory testing of enamel bevel reports many advantages; however clinical studies on this topic are scarce and controversial. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: To evaluate the effect of enamel bevel on the retention rates of composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-two patients with more than 20 teeth in occlusion and having at least two NCCLs participated in this study. The cavities were divided into non-beveled (control) and beveled (short bevel [45°, 1-2 mm long] prepared with a diamond bur) groups. The NCCLs were restored with the 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive ExciTE and the resin composite 4 Seasons (Ivoclar Vivadent). Eight-four restorations were placed and evaluated at baseline, after 6 and 12 months according to the modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. RESULTS: The 12-month retention rates (95% confidence interval) for the beveled (91% [77-97%]) and non-beveled [88% (73-95%)] groups were similar. No significant differences were detected between groups in other criteria (Fisher test, p > 0.05). No significant differences were detected in the same group compared across different recall times (McNemar test, p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Enamel beveling may not be clinically relevant for the retention of composite restorations in NCCLs after 12 months. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Beveling enamel margins may not be necessary in NCCL restorations restored with the 2-step etch-and-rinse systems.