Multi-Mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomised clinical trial one-year report

Patrícia Manarte-Monteiro, Joana Domingues, Liliana Teixeira, Sandra Gavinha, Maria Conceição Manso, Patrícia Manarte-Monteiro, Joana Domingues, Liliana Teixeira, Sandra Gavinha, Maria Conceição Manso

Abstract

Aim: Compare clinical performance and success/retention rates of two multi-mode (MM) adhesives, applied in self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (ER) modes, with SE-all-in-one adhesive (SE/SE with enamel etching) in NCCL restorations at one-year follow-up. Material and methods: Prospective, double-blind RCT approved by the University Fernando Pessoa and the National-Clinical-Research-Ethics Committees (CEIC-20150305), ClinicalTrials.gov registered (NCT02698371), in 38 participants with 210 restorations (AdmiraFusion®) randomly allocated to six groups (Adhesives_Adhesion mode), each with 35 restorations: G1-Control Futurabond®DC_SE; G2-Control Futurabond®DC_SE with enamel etching; G3-Futurabond®U_ER; G4-Futurabond®U_SE; G5-Adhese®Universal_ER; G6-Adhese®Universal_SE. Restorations evaluated at baseline and one-year by three calibrated examiners (ICC ≥0.952) using FDI criteria and statistical analysis with nonparametric tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: At one-year recall 36 participants, 199 restorations were available for examination; five (2.5%) restorations (G1 n = 2; G2, G3, G4 n = 1) were lost due to retention (p > .05); G1 showed less satisfying marginal adaptation (p < .05) than G2 and MM adhesives groups, particularly G6. Overall success rates (p > .05) were: 93.9% (G1), 97.0% (G2; G3; G4) and 100.0% (G5; G6). Conclusions: MM adhesives (Futurabond®U and Adhese®Universal) showed similar and acceptable performance/success rates but also better clinical outputs than the SE-all-in-one adhesive (Futurabond®DC), particularly in SE mode. Success and retention rates were similar and not dependent on materials or adhesion modes.

Keywords: Multi-mode adhesives; adhesion mode; non-carious cervical lesion; randomised clinical trial.

© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
CONSORT Flow Diagram. np: number of patients; nr: number of restorations; SE: self-etch; SE-EE: self-etch with enamel etching; ER: etch-and-rinse; G1-Futurabond®DC; (FBDC_SE); G2-FBDC_SE with enamel etching (FBDC_SE-EE); G3-Futurabond®U (FBU_ER); G4-(FBU_SE); G5-Adhese®Universal (ADU_ER); G6-(ADU_SE).

References

    1. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A. Influence of different etching modes on bond strength and fatigue strength to dentin using universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater. 2016;32(2):e9–21.
    1. Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano A, et al. . A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113–127.
    1. Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V, et al. . A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1083–1092.
    1. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu C-C, et al. . Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43(10):1229–1234.
    1. Lopes L, Calazans F, Hidalgo R, et al. . Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):465–480.
    1. Khare M, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, et al. . Evaluation of pit-and-fissure sealants placed with four different bonding protocols: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):444–453.
    1. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Three-year randomized clinical study of a one-step universal adhesive and a two-step self-etch adhesive in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19:287–294.
    1. Ruschel V, Shibata S, Stolf S, et al. . Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):241–249.
    1. Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC. Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent. 2012;25(3):153–158.
    1. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, et al. . Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012;40(6):475–484.
    1. Muñoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, et al. . Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent. 2013;41(5):404–411.
    1. Tuncer D, Basaran S, Halacoglu DM, et al. . Effect of haemostatic agent application on the shear bond strength of contemporary/multi-mode adhesive systems. Oral Heal Dent Manag. 2014;13:103–106.
    1. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, et al. . Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-Year in vitro study. J Dent. 2014;42(5):603–612.
    1. Vermelho PM, Reis AF, Ambrosano GMB, et al. . Adhesion of multimode adhesives to enamel and dentin after one year of water storage. Clin Oral Invest. 2017;21(5):1707–1715.
    1. Gupta A, Tavane P, Gupta PK, et al. . Evaluation of microleakage with total etch, self etch and universal adhesive systems in class V restorations: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2017;11:ZC53–ZC56.
    1. Pashaev D, Demirci M, Tekçe N, et al. . The effect of double-coating and times on the immediate and 6-month dentin bonding of universal adhesives. BME. 2017;28:169–185.
    1. Poggio C, Beltrami R, Colombo M, et al. . Influence of dentin pretreatment on bond strength of universal adhesives. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2017;3(1):30–35.
    1. Torres CRG, Zanatta RF, Silva TJ, et al. . Influence of previous acid etching on bond strength of universal adhesives to enamel and dentin. Gen Dent. 2017;65(2):e17–21.
    1. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Dental adhesives of the future. J Adhes Dent. 2002;4(2):91–103.
    1. Cuevas-Suárez CE, Rosa Wl de O D, Lund RG, et al. . Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):7–26.
    1. Nagarkar S, Theis-Mahon N, Perdigão J. Universal dental adhesives: current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance. J Biomed Mater Res. 2019;107(6):2121–2131.
    1. Pena C, Rodrigues J, Ely C, et al. . Two-year randomized clinical trial of self-etching adhesives and selective enamel etching. Oper Dent. 2016;41(3):249–257.
    1. Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S. Analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):391–403.
    1. Perdigão J. Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater. 2010;26:24–37.
    1. Van Meerbeek B, Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, et al. . The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998;26(1):1–20.
    1. Chee B, Rickman LJ, Satterthwaite JD. Adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review. J Dent. 2012;40(6):443–452.
    1. Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ, et al. . Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis. Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):370–378.
    1. Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, et al. . Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2016;32(9):1065–1072.
    1. Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, et al. . Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine-Old wine in new bottles? J Dent. 2015;43(5):525–536.
    1. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. . CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. . CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28–55.
    1. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. . Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 2007;11(1):5–33.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, et al. . Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2015;31(3):308–314.
    1. Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions-results at 3 years. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16(4):1089–1094.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, et al. . Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1089–1103.
    1. Jacker-Guhr S, Sander J, Luehrs A-K. How ‘Universal’ is adhesion? Shear bond strength of multi-mode adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):87–95.
    1. da Silva TSP, de Castro RF, Magno MB, et al. . Do HEMA-free adhesive systems have better clinical performance than HEMA-containing systems in noncarious cervical lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2018;74:1–14.
    1. Heintze SD, Blunck U, Göhring TN, et al. . Marginal adaptation in vitro and clinical outcome of Class V restorations. Dent Mater. 2009;25(5):605–620.
    1. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations - A meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2010;26(10):993–1000.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다