A Three-step Etch-and-Rinse vs a Universal Adhesive in Nanohybrid Composite Anterior Restorations: A Retrospective Clinical Evaluation.
J Adhes Dent
; 25(1): 87-97, 2023 Apr 24.
Article
em En
| MEDLINE
| ID: mdl-37093568
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE:
To retrospectively evaluate the clinical behavior of direct anterior composite restorations performed with a universal adhesive or with a three-step etch-and-rinse (E&R) adhesive. MATERIAL ANDMETHODS:
Patients were randomly treated with a three-step E&R adhesive (Optibond FL, Kerr) or a universal adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond Quick, Kuraray Noritake) applied in E&R mode. All restorations were performed with a nanohybrid composite (ClearFil Majesty ES-2, Kuraray Noritake) by the same experienced operator. Two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using a dental mirror and explorer, in accordance with modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) procedures. Clinical events were registered and classified as either failure (F), survival (SR), or success (S).RESULTS:
168 restorations were evaluated in 90 patients with an average follow-up period of 37.9 (± 22.9) months. A total of 132 restorations were performed on vital teeth, and 36 were performed on endodontically treated teeth (ETT). A total of 128 Class-IV and 40 Class-III restorations were performed. In 89 restorations, a three-step E&R adhesive was applied (14 Class-III and 75 Class-IV), while in 79, a universal adhesive was used (26 Class-III and 53 Class-IV, p = 0.0091). A Cox regression analysis was performed (p < 0.05) to analyze which factors were involved in the failure of the restorations, considering failure (F) as restorations that needed re-intervention at the follow-up period of 37.9 (± 22.9) months. No statistically significant differences were observed when considering parameters directly involved with the adhesives tested. Endodontically treated teeth were more prone to fractures (p = 0.0006) compared to vital teeth. Restorations made with universal adhesives failed by fracturing significantly more frequently (p = 0.0234), while restorations made on endodontically treated teeth had a significantly worse outcome (p = 0.0001). Restorations made on canines also failed significantly more frequently (HR = 3.8, 95% CI = 1.4-10.1, p = 0.0062).CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the obtained results, both the universal adhesive and the three-step E&R adhesive proved to be good treatment choices for direct anterior restorations after 37.9 (± 22.9) months of follow-up. Tooth vitality seems fundamental for the prognosis of a direct anterior composite restoration over time.Palavras-chave
Texto completo:
1
Base de dados:
MEDLINE
Assunto principal:
Colagem Dentária
/
Dente não Vital
Tipo de estudo:
Observational_studies
/
Prognostic_studies
Limite:
Humans
Idioma:
En
Revista:
J Adhes Dent
Assunto da revista:
ODONTOLOGIA
Ano de publicação:
2023
Tipo de documento:
Article