Two-year clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions

Evrim Eliguzeloglu Dalkilic, Huma Omurlu, Evrim Eliguzeloglu Dalkilic, Huma Omurlu

Abstract

Objectives: Adhesive systems are continuously being introduced to Dentistry, unfortunately often without sufficient clinical validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of cervical restorations done with three different adhesive systems.

Material and methods: 158 non-carious cervical lesions of 23 patients were restored with a nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Supreme, 3M/ESPE) combined with Single Bond (3M/ESPE, group SI), Clearfil SE (Kuraray Medical Inc., group CL) and Xeno III (De Trey Dentsply, group XE). In groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B, the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin was removed by roughening with a diamond bur before application of the respective adhesive systems. In groups CL-BP and XE-BP, after removal of the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin with the bur, the remaining dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid and the self-etch adhesive systems Clearfil SE and Xeno III were applied, respectively. Lesions were evaluated at baseline, and restorations after 3 months, 1 year and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria.

Results: After 2 years, no significant difference was found between the retention rates of the groups (p >0.05). Although groups CL and SI showed significantly better marginal adaptation than group XE (p<0.05) at 2 years, no significant difference was found between the marginal adaptation of the groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B (p>0.05). After 2 years no significant difference was observed among the marginal staining results of all groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: Although all adhesive systems showed similar retention rates, Clearfil SE and Single Bond showed better marginal adaptation than Xeno III after 2 years of follow-up.

References

    1. Bayne SC, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD, Sluder TB. Contributing co-variables in clinical trials. Am J Dent. 1991;4(5):247–250.
    1. Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Two-year clinical comparison of a microfilled and a hybrid resin-based composite in noncarious Class V lesions. Oper Dent. 2000;25(1):46–50.
    1. Brunton PA. Decision-making in operative dentistry. London: Quintessence Publishing Co. Ltd; 2002.
    1. Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2007;32(1):11–15.
    1. Duarte S, Jr., Perdigao J, Lopes MM. Effect of dentin conditioning time on nanoleakage. Oper Dent. 2006;31(4):500–511.
    1. Eliguzeloglu E, Eraslan O, Omurlu H, Eskitascioglu G, Belli S. The effect of cavity shape and hybrid layer on the stress distribution of cervical composite restorations. Eur J Dent. 2011;5(2):180–185.
    1. Fukegawa D, Hayakawa S, Yoshida Y, Suzuki K, Osaka A, Van Meerbeek B. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res. 2006;85(10):941–944.
    1. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca 3rd J. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent. 1992;5(6):315–317.
    1. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79(6):1385–1391.
    1. Kubo S, Kawasaki K, Yokota H, Hayashi Y. Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2006;34(2):97–105.
    1. Kwong SM, Cheung GS, Kei LH, Itthagarun A, Smales RJ, Tay FR, et al. Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dent Mater. 2002;18(5):359–369.
    1. Lehman ML, Meyer ML. Relationship of dental caries and stress: concentrations in teeth as revealed by photoelastic tests. J Dent Res. 1966;45(6):1706–1714.
    1. Palamara JE, Palamara D, Messer HH, Tyas MJ. Tooth morphology and characteristics of non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2006;34(3):185–194.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Three-year clinical effectiveness of two step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113(6):512–518.
    1. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater. 2005;21(9):864–881.
    1. Powell LV, Johnson GH, Gordon GE. Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion-erosion restorations. Oper Dent. 1995;20(1):7–13.
    1. Qvist V, Qvist J, Mjör IA. Placement and longevity of tooth-colored restorations in Denmark. Acta Odontol Scand. 1990;48(5):305–311.
    1. Russell AL. A system of classification and scoring for prevalence surveys of periodontal disease. J Dent Res. 1956;35(3):350–359.
    1. Sugizaki J, Morigami M, Uno S, Yamada T. Clinical evaluation and interfacial morphology observation of Xeno III selfetching resin bonding and restorative system. Dent Mater J. 2007;26(4):602–607.
    1. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self etching systems. I: Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mater. 2001;17(4):296–308.
    1. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent. 2004;32(3):173–196.
    1. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Water treeing - a potential mechanism for degradation of dentin adhesives. Am J Dent. 2003;16(1):6–12.
    1. Türkün SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent. 2003;31(8):527–534.
    1. Van Dijken JW. Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical lesions. Am J Dent. 2004;17(1):27–32.
    1. Van Landuyt KL, Peumans M, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Extension of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a multi-step adhesive. Dent Mater. 2006;22(6):533–544.
    1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28(3):215–235.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnieren