Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Dent ; 41(8): 675-82, 2013 Aug.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23747824

RESUMEN

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.


Asunto(s)
Restauración Dental Permanente/métodos , Recubrimientos Dentinarios/química , Cuello del Diente/patología , Desgaste de los Dientes/terapia , Adulto , Anciano , Color , Resinas Compuestas/química , Recubrimiento Dental Adhesivo , Caries Dental/etiología , Adaptación Marginal Dental , Materiales Dentales/química , Dentina/patología , Sensibilidad de la Dentina/etiología , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Masculino , Metacrilatos/química , Persona de Mediana Edad , Recurrencia , Cementos de Resina/química , Propiedades de Superficie , Decoloración de Dientes/etiología , Resultado del Tratamiento , Adulto Joven
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA