Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive

PURPOSE: The purpose of this prospective randomized controlled clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a "mild" two-step self-etching adhesive, Clearfil SE, in Class V restorations after 5 years of clinical functioning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients received two or four restorations following two randomly assigned experimental protocols: (1) a mild self-etching adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) was applied following manufacturer's instructions on both enamel and dentin (C-SE non-etch); (2) similar application of Clearfil SE, but including prior selective acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins with 40% phosphoric acid (C-SE etch). Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray) was used as the restorative composite for all 100 restorations. The clinical effectiveness was recorded in terms of retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries recurrence, postoperative sensitivity, and preservation of tooth vitality after 5 years of clinical service. The hypothesis tested was that selective acid etching of enamel with phosphoric acid improved retention, marginal integrity, and clinical microleakage of Class V restorations. RESULTS: Only one restoration of the C-SE non-etch group was lost at the 5-year recall. All other restorations were clinically acceptable. Marginal integrity deteriorated with time in both groups. The number of restorations with defect-free margins was significantly lower in the C-SE non-etch group (p = 0.0043). This latter group presented significantly more small incisal marginal defects on the enamel side (p = 0.0169). Superficial marginal discoloration increased in both groups, but was more pronounced in the C-SE non-etch group and was related to the higher frequency of small incisal marginal defects. CONCLUSION: The clinical effectiveness of the two-step self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE remained excellent after 5 years of clinical service. Additional etching of the enamel cavity margins resulted in an improved marginal adaptation on the enamel side; however, this was not critical for the overall clinical performance of the restorations.     

Clinical Evaluation of a Nanohybrid and a Flowable Resin Composite in Non-carious Cervical Lesions: 24-Month Results

Purpose: To evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of cervical restorations using a nanohybrid and a flowable resin composite with a one-step self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Twenty-one patients with at least one pair of non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study. A total of 134 non-carious cervical lesions were restored (67 with a nanohybrid resin composite, Grandio; 67 with a flowable resin composite, Grandio Flow) using a one-step self-etching adhesive system, Futura Bond NR, by one dentist. The restorations were evaluated for retention, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, surface texture, anatomic form, and secondary caries by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months using modified USPHS criteria. The survival rates of the restorations were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier estimator. The comparison of resin composites for each category was performed with the Pearson chi-square test, and the performance of restorations at baseline and after each recall time was evaluated using McNemar's test (p < 0.05). Results: All patients attended the 24-month recall. The retention rates at 6 months were 66% and 58%, and 61% and 57% at 12 months for Grandio and Grandio Flow, respectively. At the 24-month recall, the retention rate was 60% for Grandio and 54% for Grandio Flow. No statistically significant differences were found in retention rates among the restorative materials in any evaluation period (p > 0.05). For marginal discoloration and anatomical form, three Grandio and three Grandio Flow restorations showed Bravo scores at the end of 24 months. The restorations in both groups had Alfa ratings of 100% for the rest of the criteria evaluated. Conclusion: The nanohybrid and flowable resin composites showed similar clinical performances in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions over 24 months.     

A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives

BACKGROUND: The authors conducted an in vivo investigation to compare the clinical performance of two commercial one-bottle adhesives and a two-bottle adhesive for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). METHOD: The patient pool consisted of 57 patients and 171 teeth (three teeth per patient), with one NCCL per tooth. Each patient received three resin-based composite restorations, each with a different adhesive: one tooth with a two-bottle, water-based adhesive as the control; another tooth with a one-bottle, ethanol-based adhesive; and a third tooth with a one-bottle, solvent-free adhesive. The authors assessed restorations in terms of retention, marginal integrity, margin discoloration and air sensitivity at baseline, six months, one year, two years and three years after initial placement. RESULTS: The retention rates at 36 months were 88 percent for the first adhesive, 81 percent for the second adhesive and 90 percent for the third adhesive. No statistically significant differences in retention rates could be shown, with 86 percent of restorations retained overall. Measures of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration and sensitivity also had no statistically significant differences between the three adhesives (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All three adhesives performed with acceptable outcomes after a 36-month period, with small differences between the one- and two-bottle systems and between the various solvents. Retention rate was moderately high and air sensitivity was markedly reduced; however, superficial marginal discoloration and marginal degradation was notable. Certain lesion, tooth and patient characteristics may predispose restorations to retention failure. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The type of solvent may not be a major factor in retention of Class V restorations in NCCLs. Both single-bottle adhesives and conventional two-bottle adhesives performed acceptably.     

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.     

Clinical performance of novel resin composites in posterior teeth: 18-month results

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical success potential of two nanocomposites placed in posterior teeth using an antibacterial adhesive system over 18 months. METHODS: A total of 49 Class I and 47 Class II restorations were placed in the permanent teeth of thirty adult patients. The carious lesions were restored with Grandio (Voco) or Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE) using a two-step self-etching antibacterial adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray). The restorations were finished with fine-grit diamond burs, Enhance polishing system, and Sof-Lex finishing brushes. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12, and 18 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria for color stability, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, caries formation, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity, surface roughness, and retention. RESULTS: The changes in the parameters were assessed using the Cochran Q test and the McNemar test at a significance level of p < 0.05. All restorations were classified as clinically satisfactory after 18 months. Statistical analysis demonstrated differences only in superficial roughness, with Grandio exhibiting more surface roughness than Filtek Supreme (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Posterior restorations built up with the novel nanocomposites using an antibacterial self-etching system showed satisfactory results at the 18-month recall appointment relative to all criteria except the surface texture in the case of Grandio. Further evaluations are necessary for a more in-depth analysis.     

A six-month clinical study of a self-etching and an etch-and-rinse adhesive applied as recommended and after doubling the number of adhesive coats

PURPOSE: In an intra-individual comparison, a 6-month randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical performance of a self-etching and an etch-and-rinse adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions applied as recommended and after doubling the number of adhesive coats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with at least two pairs of similar sized noncarious cervical lesions participated. One hundred sixteen restorations were placed and divided into the following groups: OS2: phosphoric acid + One Step Plus applied accordingto manufacturer's recommendation (2 coats of adhesive); OS4: phosphoric acid + One Step Plus (4 coats of adhesive); TY2: Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus applied according to manufacturer's recommendation (2 coats of adhesive); TY4: Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus (4 coats of adhesive). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and the Wilcoxon sign-ranked test for pairwise significance (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: One hundred eight restorations were evaluated at 6 months. The retention rate of the group TY2 was statistically significantly lower than the other groups. Marginal discoloration occurred in all groups, being significantly worst in the group TY2. CONCLUSION: Tyrian SPE + One Step Plus applied according to manufacturer's recommendations did not meet the ADA provisional acceptance criteria for enamel-dentin bonded restorative materials. The use of four coats of the One Step Plus in the self-etching approach can improve its clinical performance.     

10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system

This study evaluated the long-term clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive system, Clearfil Liner Bond 2. Two operators placed a total of 87 restorations among 42 patients. Carious dentin was identified with the help of Caries Detector and was removed using only a low speed round bur. Clearfil Liner Bond 2 was applied following the manufacturer's directions, and the resin composite was then placed. The number of restorations placed by cavity classification were: 8-Class I, 11-Class II, 21-Class III, 2-Class IV and 45-Class V. The restorations were evaluated in 5 categories according to modified USPHS criteria: pulpal response, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, retention and secondary caries. Assessments were done at baseline, immediately after placement and at 6-months and 1, 5, 7 and 10 years. Recall rates at each assessment period were 83.9% (6-months), 82.8% (1 year), 59.8% (5 years), 77.0% (7 years) and 50.6% (10 years). In terms of assessment categories, there were no recorded sensitivity, retention loss or secondary caries at any of the five recall periods. At the 10-year assessment, 40 out of 44 restorations (90.9%) were rated Bravo for marginal integrity and 39 restorations (88.6%) were rated Bravo for marginal discoloration (Wilcoxon signed-ranks test p < 0.05). This data demonstrates the retention rate and pulpal response of the self-etching adhesive system Clearfil Liner Bond 2 was excellent at 10 years. Most cases showed slight marginal changes during clinical function; however, these changes were not clinically severe by USPHS criteria. These data demonstrate that placement of the Clearfil Liner Bond 2 self-etching adhesive system was demonstrated to be acceptable for the clinical restoration of human teeth following 10 years of clinical function.     

Three-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive in cervical lesions

A 3-yr randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a mild two-step self-etch adhesive, Clearfil SE, in Class-V non-carious lesions. The hypothesis tested was that prior selective etching of enamel with phosphoric acid does not affect the 3-yr clinical performance of this adhesive. A total of 100 lesions in 29 patients were randomly restored in one or two pairs, according to two experimental protocols: (i) application of Clearfil SE according to the instructions of the manufacturer (C-SE non-etch); and (ii) similar application of Clearfil SE with prior etching of enamel cavity margins with phosphoric acid (C-SE etch). Clearfil AP-X was used as a restorative material. At 3 yr, 90% of the restorations were examined for retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, caries recurrence, postoperative sensitivity, and preservation of tooth vitality. An excellent retention rate (100%) was noted after 3 yr of clinical functioning. Only one restoration of the C-SE etch group was clinically unacceptable owing to the presence of a severe cervical marginal defect. A pairwise comparison between both groups showed a significant difference only in the number of small marginal defects at the enamel side, which was higher in the C-SE non-etch group. These incisal defects were small and clinically irrelevant. Superficial marginal discoloration increased slightly in the C-SE non-etch group and was related to the higher frequency of small incisal marginal defects. In this latter group, localized marginal discoloration was observed significantly more in smokers. In conclusion, the clinical performance of the mild two-step self-etch adhesive, Clearfil SE, remained excellent after 3 yr of clinical functioning. Additional etching of the enamel cavity margins was not critical for its clinical performance.     

Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years

Objectives. The clinical performances of a self-etching adhesive system, Clearfil SE Bond, and a one-bottle adhesive system, Prime&Bond NT, were evaluated in non-carious Class V restorations for a period of two years.

Methods. Ninety-eight restorations were made by one operator for 32 patients. The resin composite used to restore the teeth were Clearfil AP-X and Spectrum TPH for Clearfil SE Bond and Prime&Bond NT, respectively. Two clinicians at the baseline, 6th, 12th and 24th months evaluated the posterior composites according to the modified Ryge criteria's. For this, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity and retention rates were considered. The changes across time and across groups were evaluated statistically.

Results. At two years, 88 restorations were reviewed in 28 patients. The retention rates for Clearfil SE Bond were 93 and 91% for Prime&Bond NT. The percentages of the retention rates of both adhesive systems were not found to be different when calculating the failure rates. Recurrent caries, anatomic form and postoperative sensitivity were scored as Alpha for all restorations. Two cases of both adhesive systems showed slight marginal discoloration problems. Three restorations of Prime&Bond NT and one of Clearfil SE Bond had marginal adaptation problems at two years. One case for each adhesive system had slight color change after the same period.

Conclusion. We can conclude that both adhesive systems tested exhibited very good clinical performance at the end of two years.     

Clinical evaluation of two one-bottle dentin adhesives at three years

BACKGROUND: The method currently used to adhere resin to dentin involves etching, priming and bonding. Many commercial adhesives now combine priming and bonding functions in a single solution, and these are frequently called one-bottle adhesives. The purpose of this study was to compare the 36-month clinical performance of two commercial one-bottle adhesives. METHODS: The authors enrolled 33 patients with noncarious cervical lesions in the study. A total of 101 lesions were restored with either a filled, ethanol-based adhesive (OptiBond Solo, SDS Kerr) or an unfilled, acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond 2.1, Dentsply Caulk) and a hybrid resin-based composite. Enamel margins were not beveled, and no mechanical retention was placed. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and six months, 18 months and 36 months after placement using modified Cvar/Ryge criteria. RESULTS: The retention rates at 36 months were 93.3 percent for the ethanol-based adhesive and 89.4 percent for the acetone-based adhesive. The difference in retention rates was not statistically significant. In both groups, 12 percent of the retained restorations had marginal staining, but no recurrent caries was detected around any restoration. Other restoration characteristics such as marginal adaptation and color match remained excellent three years after placement. CONCLUSIONS: The performance of both adhesives was excellent during this 36-month clinical trial. At the most recent recall evaluation (that is, 36 months), the filled, ethanol-based adhesive exhibited slightly better bond durability, but the difference between the two materials was not statistically significant. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The one-bottle adhesives evaluated in this study provided excellent clinical retention of Class V restorations without mechanical retention. When the materials are used properly, restorations are retained at a high rate during at least three years of clinical service.     

A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical performance of a resin composite and a polyacid-modified resin composite (compomer) in non-carious cervical lesions using a one-step self-etch adhesive. METHODS: Thirty patients, each with two non-carious cervical lesions (60 restorations), received one composite (Pertac-II) restoration and one compomer (Hytac) restoration, both used in conjunction with a self-etch adhesive (Prompt L-Pop) and placed following the manufacturer's instructions. Evaluations were at baseline, 6, 12 and 36 months after placement for retention, margin adaptation, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity. Statistical analysis with the Pearson Chi-square test was undertaken. RESULTS: Retention rates were 86.6% for composite and 86.7% for compomer at 36 months. 3.3% of composite and 6.7% of compomer restorations showed a deficiency in marginal adaptation. Both materials showed a slight marginal discoloration of 7.7%. More deterioration in anatomic form occurred with the compomer (11.5%) than the composite (3.8%). None of the restorations exhibited secondary caries or postoperative sensitivity problems. There was no significant difference in performance between the materials in any of the categories evaluated.     

Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years

A 2-year randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a “gold-standard” three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious Class-V lesions. The null hypothesis tested was that the one-step self-etch adhesive does perform clinically equally well as the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. A total of 161 lesions in 26 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray). The restorations were bonded either with the “all-in-one” adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray) or with the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months, 1 and 2 years, regarding their retention, marginal adapation, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensivity. Retention loss, severe marginal defects and/or discoloration that needed intervention (repair or replacement) and the occurrence of caries were considered as clinical failures. The recall rate at 2 years was 93.8%. Only one Clearfil S3 Bond restoration was lost at the 2-year recall. All other restorations were clinically acceptable. The number of restorations with defect-free margins decreased severely during the 2-year study period (to 6.7% and 25.3% for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL, respectively). The Clearfil S3 Bond restorations presented significantly more small marginal defects at the enamel side than the Optibond FL restorations (Clearfil S3 Bond: 93.3%; Optibond FL: 73.3%; p = 0.000). Superficial marginal discoloration increased in both groups (to 53.3% and 36% for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL, respectively) and was also more pronounced in the Clearfil S3 Bond group (p = 0.007). After 2 years, the simplified one-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond and the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL were clinically equally successful, even though both adhesives were characterized by progressive degradation in marginal integrity. Clearfil S3 Bond exhibited more small enamel marginal defects and superficial marginal discolorations.

     

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.     

Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the placement of two restorative materials, including a compomer (F2000, 3M ESPE) and a resin composite (Silux Plus, 3M ESPE), in non-carious cervical lesions using a self-etching bonding agent (F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive) and a fifth generation bonding agent (Single Bond, 3M ESPE) and to evaluate and compare these restorations for marginal discoloration, secondary caries, anatomical form, retention, surface texture and marginal adaptation at baseline and annually for three years. F2000 and Silux Plus were used to restore the teeth with moderate-sized non-carious cervical lesions. F2000 was placed using two different bonding agents: F2000 self-etching primer/adhesive (F2000SE group) and Single Bond (F2000SB group); Silux Plus was placed as a control using Single Bond (SiluxSB group). Thirty restorations of each material/dentin adhesive combination were placed. All restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually for three years using a modified USPHS scale. At the end of the three-year recall, Silux Plus had significantly better surface texture than F2000 (p < 0.0001). In addition, marginal adaptation significantly worsened over time starting at one year, as compared with baseline, for all groups (p < 0.0001). When anatomic form was compared between F2000 and Silux Plus, the p-value was 0.085, demonstrating that F2000 was slightly better than Silux Plus. Likewise, when comparing marginal adaptation between the F2000SE and SiluxSB groups, the p-value was 0.064, demonstrating that F2000 with the self-etching primer had better margins than Silux Plus with Single Bond. No other differences were found among the groups.     

A randomized controlled clinical trial of a HEMA-free all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 1 year

OBJECTIVES: One-step self-etch adhesives are the most recent generation of adhesives introduced onto the market. The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to test the hypothesis that a one-step self-etch adhesive performs equally well as a conventional three-step etch&rinse adhesive (gold standard). METHODS: Fifty-two patients had 267 non-carious cervical lesions restored with Gradia Direct Anterior (GC). These composite restorations were bonded either with the 'all-in-one' adhesive G-Bond (GC) or with the three-step etch&rinse adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr). The restorations were evaluated after 6 and 12 months clinical service regarding their retention, marginal integrity and discoloration, caries occurrence, preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensitivity. Retention loss, severe marginal defects and/or discoloration that needed intervention (repair or replacement) and the occurrence of caries were considered as clinical failures. A logistic regression analysis with generalized estimating equations was used to account for the clustered data (multiple restorations per patient). RESULTS: The recall rate at 1 year was 98%. The statistical analysis revealed a relatively low patient factor, indicating that supplementary information could be obtained from the additional restorations placed per patient. The retention rate for G-Bond was 98.5% compared to 99.3% for Optibond FL, due to the retention loss of two and one restorations, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two adhesives regarding the evaluated parameters except for the presence of small enamel marginal defects with G-Bond. CONCLUSIONS: After 12 months, the simplified one-step G-Bond and the three-step Optibond FL were clinically equally successful, even though both adhesives were characterized by progressive degradation of marginal adaptation, and G-Bond exhibited more small enamel marginal defects.     

Clinical performance of a self-etch adhesive in Class V restorations made with and without acid etching

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in Class V carious lesions with and without acid etching procedures. METHODS: A total of 183 Class V carious cavities with incisal margins in enamel and gingival margins in cementum were selected and restored with Futurabond NR self-etch adhesive and resin composite Grandio. Restorations were made using three different techniques; after etching of the enamel, after etching the whole cavity for 20s and without acid etching (control). The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1 and 2 years using USPHS criteria. RESULTS: No loss of restorations was recorded after 1 and 2 years for all the three restorative techniques. There was no significant difference between the baseline and 2-year results for any of the tested technique. However, restorations made after acid etching showed less marginal discoloration at the enamel margins. CONCLUSION: The clinical performance of Futurabond NR self-etch adhesive was excellent after 2 years. Acid etching of the enamel margin or the whole cavity did not improve the overall quality of the restorations, but displayed less marginal discoloration.     

自酸蚀粘接剂Adper Easy One的临床研究

目的评价一步法自酸蚀粘接剂Adper Easy One一年复诊期内的临床效果。方法临床选择有2颗恒磨牙面洞的患者27例,按随机数表选择其中一颗牙使用Adper Easy one自酸蚀粘接剂(自酸蚀组),另一颗牙使用Scotchbond酸蚀剂及Adper Single Bond2粘接剂(全酸蚀组),两颗牙均充填Filtek Z350树脂。术后即刻、1周、半年及1年复诊评价术后敏感,并按USPHS/Ryge标准评估充填体情况。结果自酸蚀组1例发生术后敏感,全酸蚀组2例发生术后敏感,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。全酸蚀组1例充填体边缘不完整,自酸蚀组所有病例充填体边缘完整,两组差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。所有充填体颜色匹配、解剖学形态、表面质地均在1年复诊期内保持良好,未发生洞缘变色及继发龋。结论一步法自酸蚀粘接剂1年复诊期内术后敏感发生率低,临床效果保持良好。     

Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months

PURPOSE: To test the null hypothesis that beveling and/or etching enamel would not affect the 18-month clinical performance of the self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond (CSEB) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL). METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, 34 patients were enrolled in this study. A total of 120 NCCL was selected and assigned to four groups: (1) CSEB was applied without any cavity preparation; (2) CSEB was applied after beveling enamel; (3) CSEB was applied after etching enamel for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid; (4) CSEB was applied after beveling and etching enamel. A microfilled composite resin was used for all restorations. RESULTS: At 6 months after initial placement, 120 restorations (a 100% recall rate) were evaluated. At 18 months, 87 restorations (a 72.5% recall rate) were available for evaluation. A survival rate of 100% was measured for all groups at both 6 and 18 months. Sensitivity to air decreased significantly only for Group 3 (no bevel+acid etch) from baseline to 18 months without statistical changes from 6 months to 18 months. None of the other parameters resulted in significant differences for any of the four groups. However, when data were pooled, both the overall marginal discoloration and the overall marginal adaptation were significantly worse at 18 months than at baseline, while sensitivity to air decreased significantly from baseline to 18 months. The 18-month survival rate of the self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond was not improved by enamel bevel or by enamel etching. Both overall marginal adaptation and overall marginal discoloration were worse at 18 months than at baseline. .     

Total-etch versus self-etch adhesive: effect on postoperative sensitivity

BACKGROUND: Self-etching adhesives are believed to prevent postoperative sensitivity when used under posterior resin-based composite restorations. The authors tested a twofold hypothesis: a self-etch, or SE, adhesive would result in less postoperative sensitivity than a total-etch, or TE, adhesive; an SE adhesive would result in poorer enamel marginal integrity than a TE adhesive. METHODS: Patients were selected on the basis of requiring Class I and II restorations in molars and premolars. The authors placed 30 restorations with the SE material (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray America, New York) and 36 restorations with Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.), which uses 34 percent phosphoric acid to etch enamel and dentin simultaneously. Preparations were of standard design, with all margins in enamel without beveling. Upon rubber dam isolation, the authors conditioned the enamel and dentin walls with the self-etching primer (for Clearfil SE Bond) or etched with the proprietary 34 percent phosphoric acid (for Prime & Bond NT), followed by application of the corresponding dentin adhesive. Teeth were restored with the proprietary hybrid resin-based composite indicated for posterior restorations: Clearfil AP-X for Clearfil SE Bond or Esthet-X Micro Matrix Restorative for Prime & Bond NT. The restored teeth were evaluated preoperatively and at two weeks, eight weeks and six months postoperatively for sensitivity to cold (ice), air and masticatory forces, as well as for marginal discoloration. RESULTS: Analysis of variance revealed no statistically significant differences in postoperative sensitivity between the SE and TE materials at any recall time. Marginal discoloration was rated as "absent" for all restorations at six months. Only one tooth displayed sensitivity to occlusal forces at six months. CONCLUSION: The SE adhesive did not differ from the TE adhesive in regard to sensitivity and marginal discoloration. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Postoperative sensitivity may depend on the restorative technique rather than on the type of dentin adhesive used.     

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.