Clinical evaluation of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system in class V noncarious composite restorations

Abstract

Context: Adhesive restorations in cervical, noncarious, and nonretentive cavities are used as a clinical model for the evaluation of adhesive systems. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate restorations made by dental students of the last year of dentistry made with a self-etching and etching-and-rinse adhesive system. Materials and Methods: Eighty-two noncarious cervical lesions Class V cavities were restored after randomly be allocated into two adhesive groups: self-etch (AdheSe self-etch) or an etch-and-rinse (Tetric N-Bond). Operators were two well-trained students of the last year of dental school and the restorations were evaluated using a single examiner, specialist in restorative dentistry, blinded and calibrated using the criteria according to the modified United States Public Health Service. Descriptive analysis, Chi-square test to evaluate associations, and survival analysis by the Kaplan–Meier were used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the evaluation of adhesive systems in Class V restorations (P = 0.160). There was also no statistically difference (P = 0.751) in the assessment of the existence of occlusal interference on lateral movement and loss of restorations. The survival rate calculated for the total restorations was 89%. The survival rate of the restorations when used etch-and-rinse adhesive systems was 92.7% while with the self-etching of 85.4%. Nine restorations were classified as lost, and one restoration cannot be assessed due to the patient having it replaced before evaluation, and the other eight restorations were lost getting the score Charlie for retention. Conclusions: Class V dental restorations had a satisfactory survival rate irrespective of the adhesive system.

Keywords

Adhesive system - randomized clinical trial - restoration - survival - United States Public Health Service

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

• References

• 1 Lussi A, Hellwig E, Ganss C, Jaeggi T. Buonocore memorial lecture. Dental erosion. Oper Dent 2009;34:251-62.
• 2 Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, Brunton P. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: A literature review. J Dent 2008;36:759-66.
• 3 Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJ, Wilson NH. The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J 1999;49:139-43.
• 4 Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, Mancl L. Characteristics of noncarious cervical lesions: A clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:725-33.
• 5 American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Acceptance Program Guidelines: Dentin and Enamel Adhesive Materials. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2001. p. 12.
• 6 Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-35.
• 7 Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005;21:864-81.
• 8 De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32.
• 9 Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 2014;30:1089-103.
• 10 Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001;134:657-62.
• 11 Ermis RB, Kam O, Celik EU, Temel UB. Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch & rinse and a two-step self-etch adhesive system in Class II restorations: Two-year results. Oper Dent 2009;34:656-63.
• 12 Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:7-10.
• 13 Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9:215-32.
• 14 Türkün SL. Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years. J Dent 2003;31:527-34.
• 15 van Dijken JW. A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2010;26:940-6.
• 16 Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 2006;34:77-85.
• 17 Torii Y, Itou K, Nishitani Y, Ishikawa K, Suzuki K. Effect of phosphoric acid etching prior to self-etching primer application on adhesion of resin composite to enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2002;15:305-8.
• 18 Perdigão J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003;15:32-41.
• 19 Peumans M, Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions. Eur J Oral Sci 2005;113:512-8.
• 20 Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, Reis A. A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:507-14.
• 21 Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 1992;5:315-7.
• 22 da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA, Loguércio AD, Demarco FF. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34:427-35.