Two-year clinical performance of two primer adhesives on Class V restorations

Abstract

The prime purpose of this clinical trial was to examine the clinical quality and retention rate of resin composite in connection with two recently developed acetone-based primer adhesives in Class V lesions according to ADA Clinical Protocol Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesive Materials. All cavities were nonretentive and predominantly in dentin (mixed Class V lesions). Total bonding was not limited either by sub-base or by base materials. All the trial restorations were placed under rubber dam. Group 1 (Version 16-135-1) and group 2 (Version 17-17-1) consisted of 42 patients with 46 trials and 38 patients with 43 fillings, respectively. The mean follow-up period and the recall response at the end of the study of group 1 were 22.8 months and 92.9% and of group 2 were 22.4 months and 94.7%. The trial restorations of both groups maintained their predominantly rated USPHS-Code Alpha level within the follow-up period. The cumulative failure rate of two trials in group 1 and four in group 2 determined a failure percentage of 4.4% and 9.3%, respectively, which is within the ADA-18 month limit of <10% Charlie. The Version KL 16-135-1 came into the market as Prime & Bond(R) 2.1, and the other one turned out to be Dyract Adhesive(R) PSA, which was primarily introduced as a single-component adhesive for compomer restorative Dyract(R) (Dentsply DeTrey, Germany).

Seven-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorations in Noncarious Cervical Lesions

“…With former adhesive systems, lost composite restorations composed up to 80% of the total restorations after four years. 17 Other studies confirmed that two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives have shown satisfactory retention rates (80% to 93%) during the first two years of evaluation, 4,26,27 but in the present study the number of lost restorations after seven years of clinical service was considerable. Evidence exists now that two-step etch-and-rinse adhesives are regarded as permeable membranes after polymerization because they lack a comparatively more hydrophobic bonding resin layer.…”

Adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review

“…The mean age of participants across studies was 52.9 (SD 6.0), although this did not take into account four studies where median age or age ranges were reported, [17][18][19][20] and three studies where age was not reported. 6,21,22 All patients were adult and had NCCLs, although Ritter et al 23 and Turkun 24 both included two lesions that had superficial areas of caries removed.…”

Effect of Operator-specific Handling on Tooth-composite Interface and Microleakage Formation

“…5,9,25,[28][29][30][31][32][33] In the past, one of the intentions of the authors of the current study was to combine the clinical assessment of enamel-dentin bonding systems with experimental in vivo and in vitro studies on the basis of the micromorphological evaluation of the tooth-composite interface and microleakage formation. 2,5,24,29,[34][35][36][37][38] This kind of experimental proof is, however, aimed at the comparative assessment of restoration systems that are investigated using the same laboratory standard, analogous to the rating of adhesive systems on the basis of bond strength values achieved within a single standardized trial.…”