A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation

Abstract

At 18 months, the new multimode adhesive, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, fulfilled the American Dental Association criteria required for full approval. Its clinical behavior is reliable when used in noncarious cervical lesions and may not depend on the bonding strategy. SUMMARYPurpose: To evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of a multimode adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, SU, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.Materials and Methods: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm, etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd, etch-andrinse + dry dentin; Set, selective enamel etching; and SE, self-etch. The composite resin, Filtek Supreme Ultra (3M ESPE), was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, and at 18 months, using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) , 2014, 39-2, 113-127 bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS criteria and 38%, 40%, 36%, and 44% for groups ERm, ERd, Set, and SE, respectively, when the FDI criteria were applied (p.0.05). However, when semiquantitative scores (or SQUACE) for marginal adaptation were used, SE resulted in a significantly greater number of restorations, with more than 30% of the total length of the interface showing marginal discrepancy (28%) in comparison with the other groups (8%, 6%, and 8%, respectively, for ERm, ERd, and Set).Conclusions: The clinical retention of the multimode adhesive at 18 months does not depend on the bonding strategy. The only differences between strategies were found for the parameter marginal adaptation, for which the FDI criteria were more sensitive than the USPHS criteria.

Bond Strength and Cytotoxicity of a Universal Adhesive According to the Hybridization Strategies to Dentin

“…The authors observed that CSB and ASB caused 47.8% and 53.1% reductions in MDPC-23 cell viability, respectively, with significant differences being observed between these two materials. The higher cytotoxicity observed in the present investigation may be attributed to the application protocol of the adhesives on dentin surfaces, i.e., two layers of the adhesive systems were applied under active pressure, which has been shown to increase bonding performance (1,25). Conversely, the experiment performed by Lanza et al (4) involved passive application of a single layer of adhesive systems.…”

“…In vitro studies also revealed that SU featured statistically similar mTBS when applied to dry or wet dentin by the ER mode, even after 1 year of in vitro storage in artificial saliva (13,14). In addition, results of clinical studies showed no significant difference in the performance of ER technique with SU on dry and wet dentin, since the authors found similar marginal adaptation and discoloration up to 36 months (1,15). According to the manufacturers, SU contains an ethanol-/water-based solvent system at 10 to 15% w/v (3M Data Sheet, 2016).…”

“…A new category of dentin adhesives, called "universal" or "multi-mode" adhesives, has been considered versatile, since both self-etching and etch-and-rinse strategies could be applied to wet or dry dentin (1). The acquisition of lasting and stable adhesion in demineralized dry dentin can open a new perspective on adhesive dentistry, since the degree of moist dentin capable of avoiding the risk of collagen fibril collapse is difficult to standardize in daily clinical…”

“…Hybridization of dentin may be influenced by several factors, including the composition of and application protocols for adhesive systems to dentin surfaces, as well as the inherent characteristics of dentin substrate (1). Adhesive systems have been classified into two major categories: etch-and-rinse and self-etch systems (2).…”

The effect of five kinds of surface treatment agents on the bond strength to various ceramics with thermocycle aging

“…When a silane coupling agent including γ-MPTS was manufactured together with an acidic solution in a single bottle, shelf-life was reported to reduce due to hydrolysis reactions 28) . In this study, SU exhibited much lower bond strengths to the silica-based ceramic materials, AAA and e.max, than the other surface treatment agents, in which all the specimens failed at the adhesive interface.…”