An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions

Abstract

Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.

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.…”

“…van Dijken et al compared clinical performance of Class II composite resin restorations placed with an UA (ABU) using the SEE strategy versus those placed with a two‐step SE adhesive (Optibond XTR; Kerr) and demonstrated good short‐term efficacy (annual failure rate of 1.8% for UA vs. 2.9% for SE adhesive) after 36 months of clinical use. Oz et al demonstrated excellent retention rates (97–100%) of composite restorations in NCCLs placed using three different UAs with the SEE strategy after 18 months. A systematic review/meta‐analysis of eight RCTs evaluating composite restorations in NCCLs found no difference in marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, post‐operative sensitivity and secondary caries when UAs were used with the ER or SE strategy.…”

Desempenho clínico dos sistemas adesivos universais: revisão crítica

“…Nos estudos analisados ainda se observou a avaliação clínica dos seguintes "SA-Uni": Xeno Select (Dentsply, DeTrey), 26 All bond Universal (BISCO Inc.), 28,35 Prime & Bond Elect (Dentsply Sirona), 29,35 Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar-Vivadent), 30 Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), 34,36 G-Premio Bond (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH), 34,36 iBOND Universal (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH 34,36 e Gluma Bond Universal (Heraeus Kulzer GmbH.). 35 Considerando a classificação de acordo com o pH dos "SA-Uni", 21 a análise revelou que há uma variação de pH entre as marcas avaliadas: Scotchbond Universal ® /Single Bond Universal ® (pH 2,7); Clearfil Universal Bond ® (pH 2,3); All-bond Universal…”

“…O MDP (10-metacriloiloxidecil Dihidrogênio Fosfato) foi o principal monômero funcional testado nos estudos analisados, estando o mesmo presente nos "SA-Uni" Scotchbond Universal ® /Single Bond Universal ® , [22][23][24][25]27,29,[31][32][33]35,[37][38][39] Clearfil Universal Bond ® , 34,36 Xeno Select ® , 26 All-bond Universal ® , G-Premio Bond ® e Tetric N-Bond Universal ® . 30 O PENTA (Dipentaeritritol pentacrilato monofosfato) está na composição do Prime & Bond Elect ® .…”