Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performance of a universal adhesive with different adhesive strategies in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over a 36-month period.
One hundred sixty-five NCCLs in 35 patients (13 female, 22 male) with at least 3 lesions were included in this study. Three groups were formed according to adhesive strategies used (n=55): selective-etch mode; etch-and-rinse mode (ER); or self-etch (SE) mode of a universal adhesive, Single Bond Universal. The same nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Ultimate was used for all restorations by a single operator. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated examiners at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, 24- and 36- months in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria. The Chi-square test was used for intergroup, the Cochran Q test was used for intragroup comparison.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scotchbond universal adhesive (etch-and-rinse) | Experimental | Acid etch (enamel&dentin)+adhesive agent Intervention: Device: Adhesive agent |
|
| Scotchbond universal adhesive (selective-etch) | Experimental | Acid etch (only enamel)+adhesive agent Intervention: Device: Adhesive agent |
|
| Scotchbond universal adhesive (self-etch) | Experimental | Adhesive agent Intervention: Device: Adhesive agent |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE) | Device | Adhesive system |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal adaptation | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation. Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed . Scores; Alfa: Closely adapted, no visible crevice. Bravo: Visible crevice, explorer will penetrate. Charlie: Crevice in which dentin is exposed | From baseline to 36 month |
| Marginal staining | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal staining. Marginal staining was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed . Scores: Alfa: No discoloration. Bravo: Discoloration without. Charlie: Discoloration with penetration in pulpal direction | From baseline to 36 month |
| Retention | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: No loss of restorative material. Charlie: Any loss of restorative material | From baseline to 36 month |
| Postoperative sensitivity | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: Not present. Bravo: sensitive but diminishing in intensity. Charlie:constant sensitivity, not diminishing in intensity | From baseline to 36 month |
| Seconder caries | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: No caries present. Charlie: Caries present |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hacettepe University | Ankara | 06100 | Turkey (Türkiye) |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 26231300 | Background | Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015 Oct;43(10):1229-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009. Epub 2015 Jul 29. | |
| 22381614 | Background | Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012 Jun;40(6):475-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012. Epub 2012 Feb 28. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| From baseline to 36 month |
| 23802645 | Background | Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014 Mar-Apr;39(2):113-27. doi: 10.2341/13-045-C. Epub 2013 Jun 26. |