A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month randomized multi-center clinical trial

Abstract

Objective: the objective of this multi-center double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GbmH, Germany) when applied using different application strategies over a period of six months. Material and Methods: for this, 200 restorations were performed on non-carious cervical lesions using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n = 50 per group): self-etch without previous conditioner (SEE); self-etch associated with selective enamel etching (SET); etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry) and; etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After hybridization, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin (Voco GmbH). After 6 months of clinical performance, these restorations were evaluated according to FDI criteria in the following items: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence. Results: seven restorations were lost/fractured after six months of clinical evaluation (2 in the SEE group, 1 in the SET group, 1 in the ERDry group, and 3 in the ERWet group). The retention rates for six months (95% confidence interval) were 96% (86%-98%) for the SEE group, 98% (89%-99%) for the SET group, 98% (89%-99%) for the ERDry group and 94% (83%-97%) for the ERWet group, with no statistical difference identified between any pair of groups (p > 0.05). Twenty-four restorations presented small marginal adaptation defects at the six-months evaluation recall, and all of them were considered clinically acceptable. Conclusion: the clinical performance of the universal adhesive Futurabond U associated to Admira Fusion unidoses resin composite was found to be promise after 6-month of clinical evaluation when applied in non-carious cervical lesions and it was not depending on the bonding strategy employed.

Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance

“…Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with long‐term follow‐ups are the best study designs to evaluate clinical effectiveness of restorative materials including dental adhesive systems. RCTs evaluating performance of UAs have compared clinical outcomes such as restoration retention/survival, restoration fracture, marginal discoloration, post‐operative sensitivity, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries …”

“…Very few RCTs have evaluated the clinical performance of UAs in restoring non‐carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), Class II cavity preparations and for luting partial ceramic crowns . Vogl et al compared the clinical performance of partial ceramic crowns (feldspathic ceramic; CEREC blocks) cemented using a self‐adhesive resin cement (no separate etch or adhesive used) versus UA plus resin cement with a SEE or a SE strategy.…”

Universal Adhesives and Adhesion Modes in Non-Carious Cervical Restorations: 2-Year Randomised Clinical Trial

“…In the literature, eight RCTs evaluated the UA Scotchbond Universal in SE and ER modes at different recalls (6 to 36 months) [ 2 , 15 , 17 , 19 , 22 , 25 , 26 , 34 ]. Other RCTs tested the UAs Xeno Select [ 24 ], FBU [ 12 , 18 ], Prime & Bond Elect [ 14 ], Tetric N-Bond Universal (ADU in some countries) [ 12 , 33 ], Gluma Universal [ 21 ], ClearfilT Universal Bond, iBond Universal, and G-Premio BondTM [ 20 ], with 6- to 24-month recalls. Our RCT, after the 1-year recall [ 23 ], assessed and compared the performance of two UAs—FBU and ADU—from different manufacturers.…”

“…Contrary to the amount of laboratory findings [ 6 ], not many randomised clinical trials (RCTs) evaluated the performance of UAs in NCCLs applied with different adhesion modes [ 2 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 ]. We performed the one-year recall of the present RCT [ 23 ].…”

Flow Cytometry Analysis of Antibacterial Effects of Universal Dentin Bonding Agents on Streptococcus mutans

“…The literature presents inhomogeneous and limited findings on the antibacterial properties of DBS, and MMAs in particular, as they are a relatively new group of bonding systems [64,89,95]. The clinical performance of MMAs applied in non-carious cervical lesions was found to be promising in a six-month evaluation, irrespective of the employed bonding strategy [96,97]. However, it was shown, that using MMAs in SE mode, in both non- and carious lesions, led to producing marginal discoloration or degradation of marginal adaptation in 18- to 24-month clinical follow-up [98,99,100].…”