AIM 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. MATERIAL AND METHOD One hundred sixty-five NCCLs in 35 patients (13 female, 22 male) with at least 3 lesions each were included in this study. Three groups were formed according to the adhesive strategy used (n = 55): selective-etch mode, etch-and-rinse mode, or self-etch 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 comparison and Cochran's Q test for intragroup comparison (∝ = 5%). RESULTS At 36 months, the recall rate was 98.1% and three restorations, one from each group, had failed because of retention loss (P > 0.05). The self-etch mode group showed 17 bravo scores for both marginal staining and marginal adaptation after 3 years, which was significantly different from the selective-etch and etch-and-rinse groups (P < 0.05). For all groups, the only statistically significant difference was found when baseline and 36-month evaluations were compared in terms of marginal staining (P = 0.000). When the marginal adaptation values at 36 months were compared with those at the baseline, statistically significant differences were found in the etch-and-rinse and self-etch mode groups (P < 0.05). Neither secondary caries nor postoperative sensitivity was observed at any recall. CONCLUSION All adhesive modes showed similar retention rates. Although all restorations were clinically acceptable, restorations in self-etch mode showed less satisfying performance for marginal staining and marginal adaptation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE At the end of 36 months, the Single Bond Universal adhesive received acceptable scores according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. However, clinicians should be aware that its use in self-etch application mode tends to result in marginal staining and marginal deterioration when compared with etch-and-rinse and selective-etch application modes.

中文翻译：

---

通用粘合剂不同粘合策略的三十六个月临床评估。

目的本临床试验的目的是评估和比较具有不同粘合策略的通用粘合剂在36个月内修复非龋齿性宫颈病变（NCCL）的性能。材料与方法本研究纳入35例患者中的165例NCCL（13例女性，22例男性），每个患者至少有3个病变。根据所使用的粘合策略（n = 55）形成了三组：通用粘合剂，单键通用粘合剂的选择性蚀刻模式，蚀刻和冲洗模式或自蚀刻模式。相同的纳米填充树脂复合材料Filtek Ultimate由一个操作员用于所有修复。根据修改后的USPHS标准，由两名经过校准的检查员在基线以及第6、12、18、24和36个月评估修复体。卡方检验用于组间比较，Cochran's Q检验用于组内比较（= 5％）。结果在36个月时，召回率为98.1％，并且由于保持力下降而进行了3次修复（每组1次）均失败（P> 0.05）。自蚀刻模式组在3年后的边际染色和边际适应性方面均显示出17个勇敢的得分，这与选择性蚀刻和蚀刻漂洗组有显着差异（P <0.05）。对于所有组，在比较基线和36个月评估的边缘染色方面，均发现仅有统计学显着性差异（P = 0.000）。将36个月时的边际适应值与基线时的边际适应性值进行比较，在蚀刻漂洗和自蚀刻模式组中发现了统计学上的显着差异（P <0.05）。在任何召回中均未观察到继发性龋齿或术后敏感性。结论所有粘合模式均显示出相似的保留率。尽管所有修复体在临床上都是可以接受的，但自蚀刻模式下的修复体在边缘染色和边缘适应性方面的满意度较低。临床相关性在36个月末，根据修改后的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准，Single Bond Universal粘合剂获得了可接受的分数。但是，临床医生应注意，与“蚀刻漂洗”和“选择性蚀刻”施加模式相比，其在自蚀刻施加模式下使用往往会导致边缘染色和边缘劣化。尽管所有修复体在临床上都是可以接受的，但自蚀刻模式下的修复体在边缘染色和边缘适应性方面的满意度较低。临床相关性在36个月末，根据修改后的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准，Single Bond Universal粘合剂获得了可接受的分数。但是，临床医生应注意，与“蚀刻漂洗”和“选择性蚀刻”施加模式相比，其在自蚀刻施加模式下使用往往会导致边缘染色和边缘劣化。尽管所有修复体在临床上都是可以接受的，但自蚀刻模式下的修复体在边缘染色和边缘适应性方面的满意度较低。临床相关性在36个月末，根据修改后的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准，Single Bond Universal粘合剂获得了可接受的分数。但是，临床医生应注意，与“蚀刻漂洗”和“选择性蚀刻”施加模式相比，其在自蚀刻施加模式下使用往往会导致边缘染色和边缘劣化。根据经修改的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准，单键通用粘合剂获得了可接受的分数。但是，临床医生应注意，与“蚀刻漂洗”和“选择性蚀刻”施加模式相比，其在自蚀刻施加模式下使用往往会导致边缘染色和边缘劣化。根据经修改的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准，单键通用粘合剂获得了可接受的分数。但是，临床医生应注意，与“蚀刻漂洗”和“选择性蚀刻”施加模式相比，其在自蚀刻施加模式下使用往往会导致边缘染色和边缘劣化。