Two-year clinical effectiveness of adhesives and retention form on resin composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions.

The current study investigated the clinical effectiveness of three adhesives and the use of retention form in Class V resin composite restorations of the non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) over a two-year period. One-hundred and fifty NCCLs in 39 patients were restored with resin composites according to six experimental protocols combining the presence or absence of retention form and three adhesives: ScotchBond Multi-Purpose (MP, 3M ESPE), an experimental adhesive (EX, Vericom) and Adper Prompt (AP, 3M ESPE). All restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months. Modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria were used to evaluate the restorations. MP was found to have significantly superior marginal adaptation than AP in cumulative logistic regression analysis (odds ratio, 2.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.05-4.31; p = 0.0397). In analysis using the Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's Exact Test to compare the clinical performance of restorations with and without retention form, EX with retention form showed a significantly higher retention rate at two years than that without retention form (p = 0.0089). Restorations with retention form also showed significantly less marginal discoloration than those without retention form in all three adhesives (p = 0.0336).

[1]  A. Feilzer,et al.  Effect of pre-etching enamel on fatigue of self-etch adhesive bonds. , 2008, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  L. Baratieri,et al.  A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. , 2007, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[3]  J. Perdigão,et al.  One-year clinical performance of self-etch adhesives in posterior restorations. , 2007, American Journal of Dentistry.

[4]  Hollenback Memorial Prize.  Academy of Operative Dentistry , 2007 .

[5]  A. Feilzer,et al.  Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. , 2006, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[6]  J. Preisser,et al.  Multilevel analysis of group-randomized trials with binary outcomes. , 2006, Community dentistry and oral epidemiology.

[7]  G. Schmalz,et al.  Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials , 2005, Clinical Oral Investigations.

[8]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[9]  G. H. Johnson,et al.  A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives. , 2005, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[10]  A. Reis,et al.  An 18-months' evaluation of self-etch and etch & rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions , 2005, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[11]  D. Sarrett.  Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[12]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. , 2005, Operative dentistry.

[13]  L. Baratieri,et al.  Effect of prolonged application times on resin-dentin bond strengths. , 2005, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[14]  L. Pimenta,et al.  Long-term bond strength of restorations subjected to thermo-mechanical stresses over time. , 2004, American journal of dentistry.

[15]  van Dijken Jw.  Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical dentin lesions. , 2004 .

[16]  B. Willershausen,et al.  In vitro shear bond strength of self-etching adhesives in comparison to 4th and 5th generation adhesives. , 2004, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[17]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  Evaluation of the fatigue behavior of the resin-dentin bond with the use of different methods. , 2003, Journal of biomedical materials research. Part B, Applied biomaterials.

[18]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. , 2003, American journal of dentistry.

[19]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. , 2003, Operative dentistry.

[20]  G. Vanherle,et al.  Four-year Water Degradation of Total-etch Adhesives Bonded to Dentin , 2003, Journal of dental research.

[21]  R. Hickel,et al.  Evaluation of thermal cycling and mechanical loading on bond strength of a self-etching primer system to dentin. , 2002, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[22]  W. Brackett,et al.  One-year clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in class V resin composites cured by two methods. , 2002, Operative dentistry.

[23]  J. Attal,et al.  Influence of a simulated oral environment on microleakage of two adhesive systems in Class II composite restorations. , 2002, Journal of dentistry.

[24]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  "No-bottle" vs "multi-bottle" dentin adhesives--a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. , 2001, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[25]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. , 2001, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[26]  N. Wilson,et al.  The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. , 1999, International dental journal.

[27]  Dong-ho Kim,et al.  TWO-DIMENSIONAL FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS ON THE EFFECT OF INTERFACE CONDITION AND RETENTION GROOVE IN CLASS V COMPOSITE RESIN RESTORATION , 1998 .

[28]  M. Latta,et al.  Three-year clinical evaluation of the Clearfil Liner Bond system. , 1997, Operative dentistry.

[29]  Gary G. Koch,et al.  Categorical Data Analysis Using The SAS1 System , 1995 .

[30]  M. Tyas.  The Class V lesion--aetiology and restoration. , 1995, Australian dental journal.

[31]  L. V. Powell,et al.  Factors associated with clinical success of cervical abrasion/erosion restorations. , 1995, Operative dentistry.

[32]  H O Heymann,et al.  Non-carious cervical lesions. , 1994, Journal of dentistry.

[33]  E. Duke,et al.  The clinical performance of a new adhesive resin system in class V and IV restorations. , 1994, Compendium.

[34]  P. Lambrechts,et al.  Morphological characterization of the interface between resin and sclerotic dentine. , 1994, E -journal of dentistry.

[35]  H O Heymann,et al.  Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restorations: a two-year clinical study. , 1991, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[36]  Midwest Dental,et al.  Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and Equipment , 1988 .

[37]  Frank D. Dunworth.  Class V restorations , 1962 .