Clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive in non‐carious cervical lesions

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of a universal adhesive in class V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two surface treatment protocols (self-etch [SfE] vs selective-enamel-etch [SelE]). Material and methods: Thirty-three adults, each with ≥2 NCCLs, received one resin composite restoration utilizing a SfE universal adhesive and another utilizing the adhesive and SelE with 37% phosphoric acid. Restorations were evaluated for sensitivity, retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and clinical acceptability through 24 months using Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests for stratified, ordered categorical outcomes. Results: Sixty-six restorations (35 SfE, 31 SelE; 27 volunteers) were evaluated at 24 months. There were no significant differences between SfE and SelE for sensitivity, retention, marginal adaptation, or clinical acceptability. One SfE restoration was lost. Marginal adaptation was significantly worse at 24 months than baseline for SelE (P = 0.01), but not for SfE. Marginal discoloration was significantly worse for SfE (P = 0.02), but not for SelE. Sensitivity improved from baseline to 24 months for both groups (SelE P = 0.004, SfE P = 0.002). Conclusions: Twenty-four-month data indicated significantly reduced sensitivity for both groups, worse marginal discoloration for SfE, and worse marginal adaptation for SelE. No changes in retention or clinical acceptability were observed in either group. All retained restorations were clinically acceptable at 24 months. Clinical Significance: Both self-etch and selective enamel etch techniques with a universal adhesive produced clinically acceptable results in resin composite restorations for NCCLs over 2 years.

Influence of viscosity and chemical composition of composite resins in non-carious cervical restorations: 12-month randomized clinical trial

“…In the present study, the same results were observed, given that, five lost restorations were in premolar (two maxillary and three mandibular) and two in maxillary incisors in agreement with Heymann's results [35]. This seems to be the reason that explains why, in many studies in which clinical follow-up of adhesive restorations in NCCL was performed, both anterior and posterior teeth were included [36][37][38][39][40][41].…”

Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations

“…43 Adhese Universal (ADU, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) resulted in very good in vitro and clinical results after up to 3 years. 55,[59][60][61] The E&R strategy showed less marginal discoloration and better marginal adaptation than the SE approach. In addition, the retention rate of ADU in NCCLs was not affected by dentin roughness created with a diamond but regardless of the adhesion strategy.…”

“…The E&R and the selective enamel etching strategies provided better clinical outcomes with All‐Bond Universal (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL) and Gluma Universal (Kulzer North America, South Bend, IN) at 2 years 43 . Adhese Universal (ADU, Ivoclar Vivadent, Amherst, NY) resulted in very good in vitro and clinical results after up to 3 years 55,59‐61 . The E&R strategy showed less marginal discoloration and better marginal adaptation than the SE approach.…”

Effect of dentin roughening and type of composite material on the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: an in vivo study with 18 months of follow-up

“…We utilized a universal adhesive in self-etch mode with the aim of reducing the number of clinical steps involved in restoration, thereby decreasing the likelihood of clinical errors. Research has indicated that self-etch mode is superior to total etch [ 37 ] or comparable to selective etch in terms of clinical performance [ 38 ]; other findings have indicated no significant effect of bonding strategy [ 39 ]. Notably, however, conflicting results are present in the literature.…”