Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions

Objectives

This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of S³ Bond (S3) and G-Bond (GB) in 108 non-carious cervical lesions.

Methods

Twenty-three patients, 12 male and 11 female (mean age: 61.8 years, range: 30–79 years) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry, participated in the study. Each patient received both materials randomly. All restorations (53 restorations for S3 and 55 restorations for GB) were placed by one dentist. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1 and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran Q test and Fisher's exact test.

Results

One restoration of each material was lost during 2 years. The only minor clinical problem was the integrity of the enamel margin. Slight marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations of both S3 and GB. There was no significant difference in the clinical performance between S3 and GB for each variable.

Conclusions

Under the protocol used in this study, S3 and GB have demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 2 years.     

Two-year clinical performance of a packable posterior composite with and without a flowable composite liner

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a packable fine hybrid dental composite (Prodigy Condensable) and the influence of the additional application of a flowable resin composite (Revolution, SDS Kerr) layer on marginal integrity after 2 years in stress-bearing posterior cavities according to the Ryge criteria. In 50 patients (40.5±17.5 years of age), 116 class II fillings (metal matrix system, glass ionomer-cement-base in 36%, rubberdam isolation in 70%) were placed, with at least two restorations per patient. The adhesive Optibond Solo Plus was used for all the restorations. In one of the two fillings in each patient, an additional layer of the flowable composite Revolution was applied in the entire cavity and separately light-cured. Baseline scores have been rated Alfa in 95% and Bravo in <5%. After 2 years, the results [%] of the Ryge evaluation for the two groups with/without the additional use of Revolution were: (1) Marginal Adaptation: Alfa:78/70, Bravo:16/27, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (2) Anatomic Form: Alfa:89/95, Bravo:6/2, Charlie:6/4; (3) Secondary Caries: Alfa:98/100, Bravo:2/0; (4) Marginal Discoloration: Alfa:76/68, Bravo:24/32, Charlie:0/0; (5) Surface: Alfa:90/91, Bravo:4/5, Charlie:0/0, Delta:6/4; (6) Color Match: Oscar:56/57, Alfa:44/39, Bravo:0/4, Charlie:0/0. Within the observation period (recall rate: 95%), three restorations out of 116 at baseline fractured, one restoration showed a secondary caries, one tooth received endodontic treatment, and all other restored teeth remained vital. After 2 years, no statistically significant difference (Chi-square test) in the overall survival rate between the group with the additional use of Revolution (92.8%) and that without Revolution (94.6%) was found. The combined survival rate for both groups together was 93.7% of clinically acceptable restorations.     

��������ʴճ�Ӽ��޸�������Ш״ȱ���ٴ���Ч�Ƚ��о�

目的比较3MAdeper^TM EasyOne和ClearfilSEBond两种自酸蚀粘接剂修复牙颈部楔状缺损的疗效。方法选择2009年1月至2011年3月在安徽省阜阳市人民医院体检中心口腔科就诊的40例牙颈部楔状缺损患者,共有50对（100颗）左右对称同名患牙。将所有患牙按照随机同名牙配对方法分为两组,各50颗。一组惠牙采用3MAdeper^TM EasyOne粘接剂修复,另一组患牙采用ClearfilSEBond粘接剂修复。分别于修复后1年和2年对两组患牙进行随访,根据改良USPHS／Rygel临床评价标准评价修复效果。结果3MAdeper^TM EasyOne粘接剂修复楔状缺损1年和2年的固位率分别为96％和90％;ClearfilSEBond粘接剂修复楔状缺损1年和2年的固位率分别为94％和86％。经统计学检验,两种粘接剂在修复效果上差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论3MAdeper^TM EasyOne和ClearfilSEBond两种自酸蚀粘接剂修复牙颈部楔状缺损的临床效果相当,临床工作中可根据实际情况灵活选择使用。     

Effect of waiting interval on chemical activation mode of dual-cure one-step self-etching adhesives on bonding to root canal dentin

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of waiting interval on the chemical activation of dual-cure one-step self-etching adhesives before placing resin core materials on the regional bond strength to root canal dentin.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight post spaces prepared in human lower premolars were applied with four dual-cure one-step self-etching adhesives Estelite Core Quick: ECB/ECQ, Clearfil DC Core Automix: CDB/CDC, Unifil Core EM: UNB/UNC, BeautiCore: BTB/BTC as the manufacturers’ instructions. These adhesives were cured with light activation for 10 s, or chemical activation with 0, 10, and 30 s waiting intervals prior to placing resin core material. Resin core materials were then placed into the post space and light-cured for 60 s. After 24 h water storage, each specimen was serially sliced into 8, 0.6 mm × 0.6 mm thick beams for the μTBS test. The regional μTBS data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Dunnett's T3 test (p < 0.05).

Results

For the chemical activation with 10 and 30 s waiting intervals, ECB and CDB exhibited significantly improved μTBS, whereas for UNB and BTB, the μTBS were not significantly different but increased with waiting interval. On the other hand, light-activation of all the adhesives produced significantly higher μTBS to root canal dentin than chemical activation (p < 0.05), except for the UNB group.

Conclusions

For the chemical activation of dual-cure one-step self-etching adhesives, a waiting interval prior to placing resin core material improved μTBS to root canal dentin. Polymerising the adhesives before polymerisation reaction of resin core material would be effective for bonding to root canal dentin.

Clinical relevance

For chemical activation mode as well as light activation mode, pre-curing of adhesive layer before proceeding polymerisation of resin filling material would produce higher bonding performance to dentin in the cavity.     

The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives

In spite of its high allergenic potential, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), a low-molecular-weight monomer, is frequently used in adhesives for its positive influence on the bond strength. In addition, the presence of HEMA in one-component one-step adhesives can prevent phase separation. OBJECTIVES: In search of improved bonding effectiveness, the 24-h bond strength of four experimental one-step self-etch adhesives with different concentrations of HEMA to bur-cut enamel and dentin was determined using a micro-tensile bond strength protocol. METHODS: The tested experimental adhesives (Exp-0, Exp-10, Exp-19 and Exp-36) only differed in their concentration of HEMA, which was 0, 10, 19 and 36%, respectively. With an increasing concentration of HEMA, the concentration of acetone was decreased. Besides bond strength, the adhesives were also examined by light-microscopy for phase separation. The interface was investigated by SEM and TEM. RESULTS: Regarding bond strength, Exp-10 performed best. Even though Exp-36 was the only adhesive formulation that did not exhibit phase separation on a glass plate, it yielded the lowest bond strength. Accordingly, droplets could be observed by SEM and TEM in the adhesive layers of all adhesives, except for Exp-36 on enamel. CONCLUSION: A small amount of HEMA (10%) improved the bond strength of a one-step self-etch adhesive. When added in higher concentrations, this beneficial effect of HEMA on the bond strength is lost due to increased osmosis, which resulted in many droplets; due to reduced polymerization conversion; and sub-optimal physico-mechanical properties of the resultant poly-HEMA containing adhesive interface.     

3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions

ObjectivesDespite representing an important component of current dental adhesives, HEMA has been said to negatively influence the long-term stability of adhesion to dentine and enamel. The aim of this randomised clinical trial was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives.MethodsThirty patients had 175 non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite (Gradia Direct Anterior, GC) using either the HEMA-rich adhesive Clearfil Tri-S Bond (C3S; Kuraray) or the HEMA-free adhesive G-Bond (GB; GC). The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6, 12, 24 and 36 months regarding retention, caries recurrence, marginal integrity and discoloration and post-operative sensitivity. The data were statistically analysed with GEE and McNemar tests (p < 0.05).ResultsThe recall rate at 6 and 12 months was 100% and decreased to 96.7% at 24 and 36 months. At 3 years, the retention rate was 93.8% for C3S and 98.8% for GB (p = 0.14). A pairwise comparison showed no significant differences between the two adhesives for all the parameters evaluated, irrespective of the recall (p > 0.05). After 3 years, both adhesives presented an increase in the percentage of clinically acceptable marginal discoloration (C3S: 32.9% and GB: 26.8%) normally associated to clinically acceptable marginal defects (C3S: 35.8% and GB: 26.5%). Only 1 dentine margin of a GB restoration presented a severe marginal defect (1.2%) and 1 C3S restoration presented caries recurrence. The overall 3-year clinical success rate was 92.6% for C3S and 97.6% for GB (p = 0.16).ConclusionBoth one-step self-etch adhesives presented an equally favourable clinical effectiveness at 3 years.Clinical significanceHEMA is a monomer frequently present in dental adhesives in order to increase their wettability and hydrophilicity. However, this monomer negatively influences hydrolytic stability and durability of the adhesive interface complex. In this 3-year clinical trial no significant difference in bonding effectiveness was noticed between a HEMA-rich and HEMA-free one-step adhesive.     

Two-year clinical performance of cast gold vs ceramic partial crowns

Cast gold partial crowns (CGPC) are an accepted means of restoring posterior teeth with extended lesions. However, for esthetic reasons, CGPC are being increasingly substituted with partial ceramic crowns (PCC). The aim of the present prospective split-mouth study was to compare the clinical performance of PCC and CGPC. There were 29 patients (male 12, female 17) who participated in the investigation for a total of 58 restorations. In each patient, one CGPC (Degulor C) and one PCC (Vita MarkII/Cerec III) were placed. CGPC were inserted using conventional zinc-phosphate cement (Harvard); PCC were adhesively luted to the cavities (Variolink II/Excite). The restorations were clinically rated using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline and 1 and 2 years after placement. The median patient age was 38 years (range 25–54). There were 29 of the CGPC and 14 PCC placed in molars, while 15 PCC were placed in premolars. All patients were available for the 1- and the 2-year recall. One PCC (1.7%) failed and had to be replaced after 2 years in situ. The rest of the restorations were functional without need of replacement. The evaluation using USPHS criteria revealed no statistically significant differences between CGPC and PCC with the exception of anatomic form: PCC showed occlusal chipping in two cases without need of replacement. From these data, it can be concluded that PCC may provide an esthetic and tissue-conservative alternative to CGPC. However, long-term studies comparing the clinical performance and longevity of cast gold and ceramic partial crowns for posterior teeth are desirable.     

Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions

OBJECTIVE: This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 5-year clinical performance of a self-etching primer system including selective enamel-etching with phosphoric acid and a one-bottle adhesive system. METHODS: Seventy-two non-carious cervical lesions in 8 patients (4 male and 4 female) with a mean age of 61.3 years (range 45-78) participated in the study. An enamel bevel was placed and dentin lightly ground, and cavities restored with clearfil liner bond II (LB) or single bond (SB) in conjunction with a hybrid resin composite (Clearfil AP-X). In the case of 27 cavities for LB, the enamel was pretreated with 37% phosphoric acid for 10 s. Each patient received both types of restoration, which were distributed on a random basis. All restorations (37 restorations for LB and 35 restorations for SB) were placed by one dentist. The restorations were evaluated blind after 5 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: All but one restoration (which was replaced by a crown after the 2-year recall) were evaluated after 5 years. 100% retention rates were recorded for both restorative groups. No caries was detected in association with any restorations. The only minor problem was marginal discoloration; superficial and localized marginal discoloration occurred around 18% of the restorations, and mainly at the dentin margin. There were no significant differences in the marginal integrity between the LB and SB groups. CONCLUSIONS: Restorative materials used in this study demonstrated a good clinical effectiveness in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions for 5 years.     

One‐year clinical evaluation of a two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique in cervical lesions

Background: The aim of this study was to determine the clinical performance of a two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique to advanced non‐carious cervical sclerotic lesions. Methods: Twenty‐two patients (mean age = 51.5) having at least two pairs of non‐carious cervical erosion/attrition/abfraction lesions with incisal or occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentine/cementum were included in the study. The two‐step self‐etch adhesive (AdheSE; Ivoclar‐Vivadent) was either applied following the self‐etch approach on both enamel and dentine (AdheSE non‐etch), or a similar application including additional acid‐etching of the enamel cavity margins with 37% phosphoric acid (AdheSE etch). Resin composite Point 4 was used for all 104 restorations. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at one year according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Data were analysed by using McNemar’s test (p <0.05). Results: There were no significant differences in the marginal adaptation both at the cervical and enamel margins between AdheSE non‐etch and AdheSE etch groups (p >0.05). At one year, marginal discolouration was evident in the AdheSE non‐etch group but it was not statistically significant from the AdheSE etch group (p = 0.12). Postoperative sensitivity was 5% at baseline and reduced to 2% at one year. Conclusions: At one year, the two‐step self‐etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique showed excellent clinical results to advanced non‐carious cervical sclerotic lesions.     

Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review

ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in terms of restoration retention as a function of time.MethodsMedline Ovid and IADR abstracts were reviewed for NCCLs clinical trials from 1950 to 2013. The reference list of all eligible trials and relevant review articles was checked to find additional studies. The review did not have any language restrictions. Only randomized controlled clinical trials that evaluated at least two adhesives for a follow-up period of at least 18 months were included. Materials with adhesive potential were categorized into 6 main classes: 3-step etch&rinse adhesives (3E&Ra's), 2-step etch&rinse adhesives (2E&Ra's), 2-step self-etch adhesives (2SEa's), 1-step self-etch adhesives (1SEa's), glass-ionomers (GI's) and self-adhesive composites (SAC's). The first four can bond restorative composite to tooth tissue. Both 2SEa and 1SEa were further sub-divided in ‘mild’ and ‘intermediately strong (1/2SEa_m), with a pH ≥ 1.5, and ‘strong’ (1/2SEa_s), with a pH < 1.5. From the restoration retention rates as a function of time the average annual failure rate (AFR) per adhesive and adhesive class was calculated.ResultsThe lowest AFR scores [mean (SD)] were recorded for GI [2.0 (1.4)] shortly followed by 2SEa_m [2.5 (1.5)], 3E&Ra [3.1 (2)] and 1SEa_m [3.6 (4.3)] (Tukey Contrasts: p > 0.05). Significantly higher AFR scores were recorded for 1SEa_s [5.4 (4.8)], 2E&R [5.8 (4.9)], and 2SEa_s [8.4 (7.9)] (p > 0.05). In addition, significant differences in AFR were noticed between adhesives of the same class (Kruskal–Wallis sum test: p > 0.05), except for GI (p = 0.7) and 2SEa_m (p = 0.1). Finally, selective enamel etching did not significantly influence the retention rate of SEa (AFR SEa_etch = 0.43 (0.49), AFR SEa_non-etch = 1.43 (1.77).SignificanceThe adhesive approach significantly influences the clinical effectiveness of adhesives in NCCLs. Within each class, except for GI, there was a wide variation in clinical bonding effectiveness.     

龋病影响牙本质自酸蚀粘接修复的研究进展

自酸蚀粘接系统适用于牙本质和釉质的粘接,具有操作简单、修复体边缘封闭性良好、术后敏感低等优点,有很好的发展前景.在临床工作中,龋坏引起的牙体缺损是临床修复的主要内容.临床上,医生在去除龋坏时,建议只去除细菌入侵的那部分牙本质,而已脱矿却无细菌入侵的牙本质,即龋坏影响牙本质(CAD),是临床粘接的主要部分.与正常的牙本质...     

Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

Objective

The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to evaluate the 4-year clinical performance of an ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite (Ceram X; Dentsply/DeTrey) in Class II restorations placed with a one-step self-etch (Xeno III; Dentsply/DeTrey) and two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Ivoclar Vivadent).

Methods

Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two, as similar as possible, Class II restorations of the nano-hybrid resin composite bonded with either a single step self-etch adhesive or a control 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified USPHS criteria at baseline and then yearly during 4 years.

Results

162 restorations were evaluated at 4 years. Postoperative sensitivity was observed in 6 patients (3 Xeno III, 3 Exite) between 1 and 3 weeks. Eleven failed restorations (6.8%) were observed during the follow up. Seven in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (7.7%) and four in the 2-step etch-and-rinse group (5.6%). This resulted in non-significant different annual failure rates of 1.9% and 1.4%, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure.

Conclusion

The ormocer-based nano-hybrid resin composite showed a good clinical performance in Class II cavities during the 4 year evaluation. No significant difference was seen in overall clinical effectiveness between the two adhesives.     

The effect of warm air-blowing on the microtensile bond strength of one-step self-etch adhesives to root canal dentin

Purpose

The use of warm air-blowing to evaporate solvents of one-step self-etch adhesive systems (1-SEAs) has been reported to be a useful method. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of warm air-blowing on root canal dentin.

A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions

BACKGROUND: There are two bonding strategies for composite restorations: the etch-and-rinse (ER) approach and the self-etch (SE) approach. Few clinical trials have evaluated the SE approach in Class V restorations for a 36-month period. The authors conducted a study to evaluate whether the SE system can provide retention rates and marginal discoloration similar to that of the ER system. METHODS: Twenty-five patients, each having at least two pairs of equivalent noncarious cervical lesions under occlusion, were enrolled in this study. Two calibrated operators placed 78 restorations, one-half for ER and one-half for SE. Two independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after six-, 12-, 18- and 36-month periods according to the slightly modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. Statistical analysis between materials in each period was conducted using a Fisher exact test (alpha = .05), and the performance of the materials at baseline in comparison with each period was evaluated by a McNemar test (alpha = .05). RESULTS: Five SE restorations and one ER restoration were lost after 36 months. After 36 months, 10 SE and five ER restorations were rated Bravo in marginal adaptation (P > .05). Fourteen SE and five ER restorations were rated Bravo in marginal discoloration (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Although a significantly increased marginal discoloration was observed with SE, both adhesives showed retention rates in noncarious cervical lesions that were not statistically different after 36 months. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The ER and SE adhesive systems can be used with confidence; however, SE adhesive showed a faster and more progressive enamel marginal degradation.     

Three-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions

Despite the fact that one-step adhesives are currently used routinely in clinical practice, long-term studies on their clinical performance are scarce. The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to test the hypothesis that a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free one-step self-etch adhesive performs worse than a conventional multistep etch-and-rinse adhesive. Two-hundred and seventy-six non-carious cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with a micro-hybrid composite (Gradia Direct; GC). These restorations were bonded in random order either with the HEMA-free one-step adhesive G-Bond (GC) or with the 'gold-standard' (control) three-step adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr). The restorations were evaluated after 6, 12, 24, and 36 months of clinical service regarding retention, marginal adaptation, microleakage, caries occurrence, and sensitivity. After a medium-long period of 3 yr, similar success in clinical performance was observed for the simplified all-in-one adhesive and the conventional three-step adhesive. However, the one-step adhesive exhibited significantly more incisal marginal defects and discolorations. Whereas marginal degradation appeared to arrest for the multistep etch-and-rinse adhesive after 12 months, the enamel margins of the restorations bonded with the one-step self-etch adhesive continued to deteriorate. These incisal marginal defects were, however, small and could easily be removed by polishing. For both adhesives, large and sclerosed lesions appeared to be at higher risk of retention loss.     

Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions

Objectives

The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free one-step adhesive.

Materials and methods

Two hundred sixty-seven cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with the composite Gradia Direct (GC), bonded with either the one-step self-etch adhesive G-Bond (GC) or the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr) in a random order. The restorations were evaluated for retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, and caries occurrence after 5 years. Specific statistics were used to account for the clustered data (multiple restorations per patient).

Results

The clinical success rate for G-Bond (87.4 %) was not significantly different from that of Optibond FL (90.9 %). Both adhesives showed progressive marginal deterioration, but G-Bond exhibited more small enamel defects and marginal discoloration, and unlike previous recalls, several restorations failed because of deep microleakage. Large sclerotic lesions were a significant risk factor for retention loss with G-Bond. Irrespective of the adhesive, almost all restorations with retention loss were located in the lower jaw.

Conclusion

After 5 years of clinical service, restorations bonded with the HEMA-free one-step adhesive did not need repair or replacement more often than those with the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive, and both adhesives had a high retention rate (>90 %). There were indications that G-Bond did not (self-)etch enough in some clinical situations, as G-Bond exhibited more incisal defects and marginal discolorations, and sclerotic lesions were at higher risk of retention loss.

Clinical relevance

The clinical performance of the HEMA-free one-step adhesive was clinically acceptable after 5 years.     

A clinical trial comparing two all-in-one adhesive systems used to restore non-carious cervical lesions: results at one year

BACKGROUND: Few data exist with respect to the clinical performance of all-in-one adhesive systems. However, their clinical use is increasing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the retention and marginal staining of resin composite restorations bonded with Clearfil S(3) Bond or G-Bond all-in-one systems placed in non-carious cervical lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty restorations were placed in 11 subjects, mean age 62.5 years. Approval for the clinical trial was obtained from the Human Ethics Committee of The University of Melbourne. Restorations were bonded and placed according to the manufacturers' instructions. No enamel etching was performed on the enamel margins prior to restoration placement. Patients were recalled at six months, and one year for evaluation of presence and marginal staining. Photographic records were obtained prior to restoration, immediately after and at recall. RESULTS: All patients could be recalled. All restorations were present at both recall periods. A 100 per cent retention rate was obtained. Slight marginal staining was observed on four restorations for S(3) and three restorations for G-Bond. CONCLUSIONS: The early results of this clinical evaluation showed good outcomes for both materials.     

Five-year clinical performance of the dentine Deproteinization Technique in non-carious cervical lesions

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) using a total-etch adhesive system with or without collagen removal with 10% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl).

Methods

In this study randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial, one-hundred and thirty-eight NCCL were restored into 30 patients. Each patient received at least one pair of composite restorations (Filtek A110/3M ESPE), bonded either with 2 techniques: Conventional Technique – acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid + Prime & Bond NT (Denstply DeTrey); Deproteinization Technique – acid etching with 37% phosphoric acid + 10% NaOCl for 1 min + Prime & Bond NT. The two techniques were evaluated using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 18 months, 3 and 5 years. After five years, one-hundred and six restorations were evaluated in 24 patients. Data were analyzed using the Chi-Square test (p < 0.05).

Results

There were no statistically significant differences between the two techniques regarding the evaluated parameters (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

After 5 years, the application of 10% NaOCl deproteinization on etched dentine did not affect the clinical performance of composite restorations placed in NCCL when compared to the conventional total-etch technique.

Clinical significance

Clinical studies evaluating the performance of the Deproteinization Technique are scarce. In this study, this technique showed similar clinical performance at the end of 5 years when compared to a conventional total-etch technique.