Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial

Matos, Thalita de Paris; Perdigão, Jorge; Paula, Eloisa de; Coppla, Fabiana Madalozzo; Hass, Viviane; Scheffer, Rafael F.; Reis, Alessandra; Loguércio, Alessandro Dourado

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

Cited by 81 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In fact, the clinical retention rates of E&R adhesives applied to moist dentin are not inferior to those of the same adhesives applied to dry dentin (Figure 7(B)). 15,50 Likewise, the 5‐year clinical performance of SBU in E&R mode applied on dry dentin 42 did not result in worse retention than when the adhesive was applied on moist dentin. The successful clinical behavior of SBU on dry dentin may be a result of the respective manufacturer's instructions, which recommend rubbing the adhesive in for 20 s 51 .…”

Section: Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…42 When SBU was applied in SE mode, the retention rate was 81.4% and the marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration were significantly worse. 42 Another study with SBU reported excellent clinical outcomes at 36 months with an overall retention rate of 98.1%. 56 No statistical difference was found for different adhesion strategies.…”

Section: Clinical Studies With Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The 5‐year retention rate in NCCLs was 93% when the adhesive was applied in E&R mode independent of the degree of dentin moisture (dry or moist) 42 . When SBU was applied in SE mode, the retention rate was 81.4% and the marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration were significantly worse 42 …”

Section: Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several clinical studies, including a 5‐year randomized clinical trial in NCCLs using both the USPHS and the FDI criteria, demonstrated that the clinical behavior of SBU makes this adhesive the current gold standard for universal adhesives 42,56,57 . The 5‐year retention rate in NCCLs was 93% when the adhesive was applied in E&R mode independent of the degree of dentin moisture (dry or moist) 42 . When SBU was applied in SE mode, the retention rate was 81.4% and the marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration were significantly worse 42 …”

Section: Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While the dentin interfaces formed with universal adhesives are fairly stable after artificial aging in laboratory studies when dentin is not etched with phosphoric acid, [39][40][41] the clinical behavior of universal adhesives depends on enamel etching with phosphoric acid. [41][42][43][44][45] Thus, selective enamel etching (Figure 7(A)) may provide micro-mechanical retention and marginal sealing of etched enamel, in addition to potential chemical bonding between the functional monomer MDP and calcium in dentin hydroxyapatite.…”

Section: Are Simplified Adhesives Better Than Multibottle Adhesives?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations

Perdigão

Araújo

Ramos

et al. 2020

J Esthet Restor Dent

Self Cite

140

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To address contemporary concepts in adhesive dental materials with emphasis on the evidence behind their clinical use. Overview Adhesive dentistry has undergone major transformations within the last 20 years. New dental adhesives and composite resins have been launched with special focus on their user‐friendliness by reducing the number of components and/or clinical steps. The latest examples are universal adhesives and universal composite resins. While clinicians prefer multipurpose materials with shorter application times, the simplification of clinical procedures does not always result in the best clinical outcomes. This review summarizes the current evidence on adhesive restorative materials with focus on universal adhesives and universal composite resins. Conclusions (a) Although the clinical behavior of universal adhesives has exceeded expectations, dentists still need to etch enamel to achieve durable restorations; (b) there is no clinical evidence to back some of the popular adjunct techniques used with dental adhesives, including glutaraldehyde‐based desensitizers and matrix metalloproteinase inhibitors; and (c) the color adaptation potential of new universal composite resins has simplified their clinical application by combining multiple shades without using different translucencies of the same shade. Clinical Significance New adhesive restorative materials are easier to use than their predecessors, while providing excellent clinical outcomes without compromising the esthetic quality of the restorations.

show abstract

Section: Universal Adhesivesmentioning

confidence: 96%