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

Fatma Dilsad Oz, Canan Ozturk, Reza Soleimani, Sevil Gurgan, Fatma Dilsad Oz, Canan Ozturk, Reza Soleimani, Sevil Gurgan

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Non-carious cervical lesion; Selective enamel etching; Universal adhesive.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow diagram of the study. nP, number of patients; nR, number of restorations; CU, Clearfil Universal Bond; IU, iBOND Universal; GP, G-Premio Bond
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Survival curves for the tested groups (CU [Clearlfil Universal Bond], IU [iBOND Universal], GP [G-Premio Bond])

References

    1. Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent. 2008;36(10):759–766. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.004.
    1. Yoshizaki KT, Francisconi-Dos-Rios LF, Sobral MA, Aranha AC, Mendes FM, Scaramucci T. Clinical features and factors associated with non-carious cervical lesions and dentin hypersensitivity. J Oral Rehabil. 2017;44(2):112–118. doi: 10.1111/joor.12469.
    1. Perez Cdos R, Gonzalez MR, Prado NA, de Miranda MS, MacedoMde A, Fernandes BM. Restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: when, why, and how. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:687058. doi: 10.1155/2012/687058.
    1. Jager S, Balthazard R, Dahoun A, Mortier E (2016) Filler content, surface microhardness, and rheological properties of various flowable resin composites Oper Dent 41(6):655–665. 10.2341/16-031-L.
    1. Petrovic LM, Zorica DM, Stojanac I, Krstonosic VS, Hadnadjev MS, Atanackovic TM. A model of the viscoelastic behavior of flowable resin composites prior to setting. Dent Mater. 2013;29(9):929–934. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.06.005.
    1. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Martini E, Reis A, Loguercio A. Effect of flowable composites on the clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017;65:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.007.
    1. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjaderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016.
    1. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano DE. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater. 2008;24(1):90–101. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009.
    1. Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, Reis A. A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2007;138(4):507–514. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0204.
    1. Soderholm KJ, Ottenga M, Nimmo S. Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions. Am J Dent. 2013;26(1):28–32.
    1. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004;83(6):454–458. doi: 10.1177/154405910408300604.
    1. Perdigao J, Swift EJ., Jr Universal adhesives. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(6):331–334. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12185.
    1. Tsujimoto A, Iwasa M, Shimamura Y, Murayama R, Takamizawa T, Miyazaki M. Enamel bonding of single-step self-etch adhesives: influence of surface energy characteristics. J Dent. 2010;38(2):123–130. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2009.09.011.
    1. Wong J, Tsujimoto A, Fischer NG, Baruth AG, Barkmeier WW, Johnson EA, Samuel SM, Takamizawa T, Latta MA, Miyazaki M. Enamel etching for universal adhesives: examination of enamel etching protocols for optimization of bonding effectiveness. Oper Dent. 2020;45(1):80–91. doi: 10.2341/18-275-L.
    1. Zafar MS, Ahmed N. The effects of acid etching time on surface mechanical properties of dental hard tissues. Dent Mater J. 2015;34(3):315–320. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-083.
    1. Breschi L, Maravic T, Cunha SR, Comba A, Cadenaro M, Tjaderhane L, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Mazzoni A. Dentin bonding systems: from dentin collagen structure to bond preservation and clinical applications. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):78–96. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2017.11.005.
    1. Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, Chen JH, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine–old wine in new bottles? J Dent. 2015;43(5):525–536. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.004.
    1. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent. 2014;42(7):800–807. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.012.
    1. Carvalho RM, Manso AP. Biodegradation of resin-dentin bonds: a clinical problem? Current Oral Health Reports. 2016;3(3):229–233. doi: 10.1007/s40496-016-0104-0.
    1. Mine A, De Munck J, Vivan Cardoso M, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Kuboki T, Yoshida Y, Suzuki K, Van Meerbeek B. Enamel-smear compromises bonding by mild self-etch adhesives. J Dent Res. 2010;89(12):1505–1509. doi: 10.1177/0022034510384871.
    1. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent. 2000;25(2):75–80. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00459.x.
    1. Toledano M, Osorio R, de Leonardi G, Rosales-Leal JI, Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of self-etching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent. 2001;14(4):205–210. doi: 10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.6.477.
    1. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765–776. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.003.
    1. Lopes LS, Calazans FS, Hidalgo R, Buitrago LL, Gutierrez F, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Barceleiro MO. 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. doi: 10.2341/15-309-C.
    1. Oz FD, Ergin E, Canatan S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:20180358. doi: 10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0358.
    1. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009.
    1. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial J Dent 43(9) 1083–1092. 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005.
    1. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113–127. doi: 10.2341/13-045-C.
    1. Batra C, Nagpal R, Tyagi SP, Singh UP, Manuja N. In vitro bonding effectiveness of three different one-step self-etch adhesives with additional enamel etching. J Investig Clin Dent. 2014;5(3):226–236. doi: 10.1111/jicd.12039.
    1. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater. 2009;25(11):1459–1467. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.002.
    1. Rotta M, Bresciani P, Moura SK, Grande RH, Hilgert LA, Baratieri LN, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effects of phosphoric acid pretreatment and substitution of bonding resin on bonding effectiveness of self-etching systems to enamel. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(6):537–545.
    1. Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Di Lenarda R, Petschelt A, Breschi L. Role of preliminary etching for one-step self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(5):517–524. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00769.x.
    1. Cardenas AM, Siqueira F, Rocha J, Szesz AL, Anwar M, El-Askary F, Reis A, Loguercio A. Influence of conditioning time of universal adhesives on adhesive properties and enamel-etching pattern. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):481–490. doi: 10.2341/15-213-L.
    1. de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS. Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(3):243–250. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a32033.
    1. Loguercio AD, Munoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Hass V, Reis A, Perdigao J. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance? J Dent. 2015;43(9):1060–1070. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.005.
    1. Grippo JO, Simring M, Coleman TA. Abfraction, abrasion, biocorrosion, and the enigma of noncarious cervical lesions: a 20-year perspective. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2012;24(1):10–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2011.00487.x.
    1. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:1–11. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.009.
    1. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28(3):215–235
    1. Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M. A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater. 2005;21(4):375–383. doi: 10.1016/10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.008.
    1. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):17–28. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023.
    1. Zander-Grande C, Amaral RC, Loguercio AD, Barroso LP, Reis A. Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2014;39(3):228–238. doi: 10.2341/12-286-C.
    1. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, de Carvalho RM, da Julio SM, Grande RH. Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5(3):183–192.
    1. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Carvalho RM, Grande RH. Durability of resin dentin interfaces: effects of surface moisture and adhesive solvent component. Dent Mater. 2004;20(7):669–676. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2003.11.006.
    1. Rueggeberg FA, Margeson DH. The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res. 1990;69(10):1652–1658. doi: 10.1177/00220345900690100501.
    1. Zhang Z, Wang X, Zhang L, Liang B, Tang T, Fu B, Hannig M. The contribution of chemical bonding to the short- and long-term enamel bond strengths. Dent Mater. 2013;29(7):103–112. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.009.
    1. de Paris MT, Perdigao J, de Paula E, Coppla F, Hass V, Scheffer RF, Reis A, Loguercio AD. Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: a randomized double-blind trial. Dent Mater. 2020;36(11):1474–1485. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007.
    1. Can Say E, Yurdaguven H, Ozel E, Soyman M. A randomized five-year clinical study of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater J. 2014;33(6):757–763. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2014-106.
    1. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Meerbeek B. 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. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.005.
    1. Ruschel VC, Shibata S, Stolf SC, Chung Y, Baratieri LN, Heymann HO, Walter R. Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):241–249. doi: 10.2341/16-320-C.
    1. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations–a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2010;26(10):993–1000. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.06.003.
    1. Baroudi K, Rodrigues JC. Flowable resin composites: a systematic review and clinical considerations. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(6):18–24. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12294.6129.
    1. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ, Jr., Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M (1998) A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 129(5):567–577. 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0274
    1. Sumino N, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Shiratsuchi K, Miyazaki M, Latta MA. Comparison of the wear and flexural characteristics of flowable resin composites for posterior lesions. Acta Odontol Scand. 2013;71(3–4):820–827. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2012.734405.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться