Objective The aim of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the 6- and 18-month clinical performances of a new universal adhesive applied in the “no-waiting” (NW) technique to non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Materials and methods One hundred and seventy-six restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, adhesive strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies with 20 s applications and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the ER and SE strategies with the NW technique. The composite resin restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months using the World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analyses ( α = 0.05). Results No significant differences were observed among any of the groups or criteria after 6 months ( p > 0.05). After 18 months, 10 restorations were lost ( p > 0.05) (2 with PB-ER [95.5%; 95%CI: 92–100%], 4 with PB-SE [90.9%; 95%CI: 82–98%], 0 with CQ-ER [100%; 95%CI: 92–100%], and 4 with CQ-SE [90.9%; 82–98%]). The restorations performed with the SE strategy showed more marginal discrepancies than those performed with the ER strategy, mainly when the FDI criteria were used ( p < 0.05). Those that used the PB-SE showed fewer marginal discrepancies than those that used the CQ-SE (FDI; p < 0.05). A few restorations showed marginal discrepancies after the USPHS analysis ( p > 0.05). Conclusions The results when using the CQ-SE and -ER strategies with the NW technique were similar to those when using the PB-SE and -ER strategies in standard applications to non-carious cervical lesions after 6 and 18 months of clinical evaluation. Clinical relevance After 6 and 18 months, the application of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick with the “no-waiting” technique showed similar clinical performance compared to the standard application of Prime & Bond Active applied using the standard application time (20 s). Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier RBR-5f9gps.

Background: Clinical assessment and monitoring of dental erosion in vivo is challenging, although a number of clinical indices have been proposed but these are unlikely to be sensitive enough to quantify erosion with sufficient sensitivity to allow comparison of different therapies. In this respect, some of the techniques predominantly employed for the assessment of dental caries such as Quantitative light- induced fluorescence (QLF) and Optical coherence tomography (OCT) may also have utility for the assessment for erosion both in vivo and in vitro. The aim of the present study was to test three techniques (QLF, OCT and SMH) for the assessment of dentine erosion in a product testing model, using dentifrices to reduce erosion susceptibility. Dentine erosion was evaluated comparing the methods. Methods: Human dentine specimens were treated with one of two dentifrice slurries or mineral water (control group), followed by an erosive challenge and storage overnight in artificial saliva. These procedures were performed over 5 days. The following two dentifrices were tested: Duraphat™ 5000 (5000ppm Sodium Fluoride) and Colgate Sensitive Pro-Relief™ (8% arginine plus calcium carbonate and 1450ppm Fluoride). All groups showed a progressivedecrease in SMH and increase in scattering for OCT (P<0.05) indicating mineral loss. Results: The two dentifrice groups demonstrated significantly less softening than the control group (P<0.05). No statistically significantdifferences were detected for dentine erosion using QLF (P>0.05). Conclusion: SMH and OCT techniques were able to detect a significant protective effect against in vitro erosion whensamples were pre-treated with either dentifrice formulation. Dentifrices containing high concentrations of fluoride andarginine associated with calcium carbonate and fluoride have a protective effect against dentinal erosion.