A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.

Background and objective: The aim of this randomized split-mouth study-controlled clinical trial was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed at non-caries cervical lesions (NCCL) with one-step self-etch, total-etch, and selective enamel etch and self-etch adhesive techniques. Materials and methods: Thirty-two patients received three resin composite restorations each at NCCLs (Tetric EvoCeram/Ivoclar/Vivadent), bonded with a total-etch adhesive agent (ExciTE F/Ivoclar/Vivadent) and a self-etch (AdheSE One F/Ivoclar/Vivadent) without and with selective enamel etching. All restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-months with FDI clinical criteria (post-operation regarding retention, caries occurrence, marginal adaptation, and marginal staining). A logistic regression analysis, a Cohen's kappa statistic, a multifactorial analysis, and X2 were performed with generalized estimating equations. Results: After 2 years, the retention rate was 86.8% for total etch, 92.26% for self-etch, and 93.63% for selective enamel etching and self-etch. No caries was detected on the restorations. Concerning marginal adaptation, the clinically perfect restorations were 26.9% for the total-etch technique, 16% for self-etch, and 25.9% for selective enamel etch and self-etch. The logistic regression model revealed that only time reduced the probability of perfect marginal adaptation. Conclusions: All three adhesive strategies provided restorations with no significant differences in the retention rate or marginal adaptation, whereas the total etch yielded better performance for marginal staining. All restorations were assessed as clinically acceptable after 2 years.

Sixty-month follow up of three different universal adhesives used with a highly-filled flowable resin composite in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesion.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives used with a highly filled flowable universal resin composite in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over a 60-month period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-nine NCCLs were restored at 18 participants. NCCLs were divided into three different universal adhesive groups: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU) (n = 31), iBOND Universal (IU) (n = 33), and G-Premio Bond (GP) (n = 35). Prior to the adhesive procedures, selective enamel etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid in all experimental groups. Adhesive systems were applied following the manufacturers' instructions, and the lesions were restored with a highly filled flowable resin composite (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement. All restorations were scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline) and 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, and 60 months. Statistical analyses were performed using chi-square and McNemar's and Kaplan Meier tests. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: After 60 months, the recall rate was 72.2%. Survival rates of CU, IU, and GP restorations were 87%, 85.2%, and 96.5%, respectively. Five CU (25%), 8 IU (34.8%), and 12 GP (42.9%) restorations exhibit bravo scores for marginal adaptation. However, no differences were seen among them. CU showed lower bravo score than IU and GP for marginal discoloration (CU, 0%; IU, 26.1%; GP, 32.1%). Two CU, 7 IU, and 6 GP restorations showed bravo scores for surface texture, and 2 (9.1%) CU and 1 (3.3%) GP restorations were scored as bravo score for color match (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The tested universal adhesives showed similar success rates during the 60-month follow-up. However, CU showed better clinical performance than IU and GP in terms of marginal adaptation and discoloration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03415412 CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The long-term clinical performances of the three universal adhesives in the restoration of NCCLs using selective enamel etching mode were successful after 60 months.

Longevity of indirect restorations cemented with self-adhesive resin luting with and without selective enamel etching. A Systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of the selective etching in the survival rates of indirect restorations cemented with self-adhesive resin luting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The eligibility criteria were formulated based on PICOS strategy. The search without restrictions was performed in PubMed/Medline, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS databases and gray literature until May 2018. Cochrane Collaboration's tool was performed for assessing the risk of bias. According to the bias risk analysis, the studies were classified as low risk of bias and high quality of evidence. The systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018091202). The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software (RevMan, Copenhagen, Denmark) and the risk ration and confidence interval was obtained (p < 0.05). RESULTS: After database screening, removal of duplicates and eligibility criteria application, two studies were selected for this systematic review, with 65 participants (34 in one and 31 in the other). The pooled meta-analysis demonstrated no statistically significant difference in clinical longevity for selective etching in indirect restorations (P > .05; I2 = 0%) and risk ratio of 0.46 [0.19-1.09]. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings, the results of this systematic review suggest that the selective enamel etching prior to application of self-adhesive luting cements systems for indirect restoration do not influence the clinical longevity of indirect restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The knowledge of the clinical steps of adhesive procedures is fundamental to the success of adhesive restorations and their longevity. Self-adhesive resin cements simplify the luting procedure of indirect restorations. However, adding a step that could significantly improve long-term survival would be of great value. Thus, the results of this systematic review will provide data so that the decision making regarding materials used for adhesive cementation is conducted based on scientific evidence.

A randomised controlled trial of a nanofilled composite at three years: Did selective enamel etching have an effect?

General dental practice is increasingly being recognised as the ideal situation for the conduct of clinical trials into the longevity of restorations. The aim of this study was to investigate the survival of 75 nanofilled resin composite restorations placed in an assortment of cavities using a self-etch dentine bonding agent, in five UK dental practices by members of the UK-based practice-based research group, the PREP Panel, with half of the restorations receiving a selective enamel etch and the other half being placed using a self-etching approach. The results indicated good performance of the restorations examined, with no failures being identified and excellent surface characteristics, in terms of colour stability, minimal surface roughness and optimal anatomic form. Selective enamel etching tended to produce less marginal discolouration, although these results were not statistically significant.

Randomized clinical split-mouth study on the performance of CAD/CAM-partial ceramic crowns luted with a self-adhesive resin cement or a universal adhesive and a conventional resin cement after 39 months.

Objectives To determine the clinical performance of partial ceramic crowns (PCCs) luted with a conventional resin cement combined with a universal adhesive without or with selective enamel etching or luted with a self-adhesive resin cement. Methods In a split-mouth design, each three CAD/CAM-PCCs (Vita Mark II, Cerec) were placed in 50 patients. Two PCCs were luted with a conventional resin cement (RelyX Ultimate) combined with a universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) without (SB-E) or with (SB+E) selective enamel etching. The third PCC was luted with a self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX Unicem 2; RXU). Chi-square tests (α≤0.05) were applied. Based on clinical failures (complete debonding or need for replacement of the restorations), Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Results 31 patients were evaluated clinically using FDI criteria at 39 months. Clinically acceptable results were detected over time, except for "fracture of material and retention" (inacceptable fractures and debondings). Within materials, statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.003) between baseline and 39 months were found for "marginal adaptation" and "marginal staining". At 39-month, SB+E and SB-E showed significantly better results compared to RXU in "marginal adaptation"(p ≤ 0.021) and "marginal staining"(p ≤ 0.013). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed higher survival rates after 39 months for SB+E (96%) and SB-E (88%) compared to RXU (69%) with statistically significant differences between RXU vs. SB-E (p = 0.022) and RXU vs. SB+E (p ≤ 0.001). Conclusions After 39-months, PCCs luted with the self-adhesive resin cement exhibited a statistically significant inferior survival rate compared to restorations luted with the conventional resin cement combined with a universal adhesive without or with selective enamel etching. Clinical significance Currently, self-adhesive resin cements cannot be recommended for luting partial ceramic crowns. However, the standard adhesive luting procedure comprising a universal adhesive and luting composite yielded good clinical results for more than 3 years irrespectively of application of a selective enamel etching step.

Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the five-year clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU; 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. METHODS: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: SU-ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; SU-ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; SU-Set: selective enamel etching; and SU-SE: self-etch. A nanofilled composite resin was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 5 years using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The survival rates (retention/fractures) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. For the secondary outcomes, Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank was applied (α = 0.05). RESULTS: After 5 years the recall rate was 86%. The retention/fracture rates were 93% for Erm and ERd, 88.4% for SEet and 81.4% for SE. A significant difference was observed for SE vs. ERd and SE vs. ERm (p = 0.01). Also, marginal discoloration and adaptation showed significant differences with ERm and ERd resulting in fewer marginal discrepancies than SE (p < 0.05). SIGNIFICANCE: After 5 years, the clinical behavior of the universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse strategy was better when compared to the self-etch strategy. The use of selective enamel etching is highly recommended for the self-etch strategy. The FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria showed similar results after 5 years.

Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To identify if selective etching of enamel (SEE) margins improves the retention rates and marginal discoloration of cervical composite restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adult patients. SOURCE: MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO Library, Cochrane Library and SIGLE were searched without restrictions, as well as IADR abstracts and gray literature via trial registries. Dissertations and theses were searched using the ProQuest Dissertations and Periódicos Capes Theses databases. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials that compared the clinical effectiveness of SEE using the self-etch adhesive for direct composite resin restorations in NCCLs in the permanent dentition. DATA: After removal of duplicates, 2689 articles were identified. Following screening of abstracts, 10 studies remained in the qualitative synthesis. Seven were considered to be at "low" risk of bias. The report of the studies varied from 1 to 5 years. Except for one-year follow-up, there was a significantly lower marginal discoloration and marginal adaptation during all follow-up periods. Significantly less loss of retention of restorations at the 3-year follow-up was observed with the selective enamel etching technique. CONCLUSIONS: Selective enamel prior to application of self-etch adhesive systems in NCCLs might improve clinical performance of resin-composite cervical restorations, although further long-term research is required to confirm this. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Selective enamel etching prior to application of self-etch adhesive systems in NCCLs can produce composite restorations with higher longevity.