Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Santos MJ, Ari N, Steele S, Costella J, Banting D (2014) Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions-a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 18(5):1369–1381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1220-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Kwong SM, Cheung GS, Kei LH, Itthagarun A, Smales RJ, Tay FR et al (2002) Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dent Mater 18(5):359–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00051-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Mattar D, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P (2003) Microtensile bond strengths of an etch&rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment. Oper Dent 28(5):647–660

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P et al (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28(3):215–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO (2015) Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 43(10):1229–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dent.2015.07.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, Reis A (2007) A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 138(4):507–514. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0204

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A et al (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-045-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U (2014) Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 42(7):800–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosa M, Cadenaro M et al (2014) Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 42(5):603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Munoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH (2013) Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent 41(5):404–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, Chen JH, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2015) Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine-old wine in new bottles? J Dent 43(5):525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B et al (2012) Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 40(6):475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA (2009) The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25(11):1459–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M (2008) Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent 10(5):339–344

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2010) Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater 26(12):1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Landuyt KL, Yoshida Y, Hirata I, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Okazaki M et al (2008) Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J Dent Res 87(8):757–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700804

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV (2012) Self-assembled Nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 91(4):376–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Munoz MA, Luque-Martinez I, Malaquias P, Hass V, Reis A, Campanha NH et al (2015) In vitro longevity of bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Oper Dent 40(3):282–292. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-055-L

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, Group C (2011) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 9(8):672–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith BG, Knight JK (1984) An index for measuring the wear of teeth. Br Dent J 156(12):435–438. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805394

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF (2003) Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 5(4):323–332

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Ryge G (1980) Clinical criteria. Int Dent J 30(4):347–358

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Heintze SD, Rousson V (2012) Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations-a meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 14(5):407–431. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Brunthaler A, Konig F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A (2003) Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig 7(2):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-003-0206-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO et al (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40(6):581–593. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-089-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tay FR, Pashley DH (2004) Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent 32(3):173–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr (2008) Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis. Oper Dent 33(4):370–378. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-128

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Torres CR, Barcellos DC, Pucci CR, Lima Gde M, Rodrigues CM, Siviero M (2009) Influence of methods of application of self-etching adhesive systems on adhesive bond strength to enamel. J Adhes Dent 11(4):279–286

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. do Amaral RC, Stanislawczuk R, Zander-Grande C, Michel MD, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) Active application improves the bonding performance of self-etch adhesives to dentin. J Dent 37(1):82–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.09.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Irmak O, Yaman BC, Orhan EO, Ozer F, Blatz MB (2018) Effect of rubbing force magnitude on bond strength of universal adhesives applied in self-etch mode. Dent Mater J 37(1):139–145. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Zander-Grande C, Amaral RC, Loguercio AD, Barroso LP, Reis A (2014) Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial. Oper Dent 39(3):228–238. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-286-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Loguercio AD, Raffo J, Bassani F, Balestrini H, Santo D, do Amaral RC et al (2011) 24-month clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive applied using a rubbing motion. Clin Oral Investig 15(4):589–596. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0408-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dietschi D, Monasevic M, Krejci I, Davidson C (2002) Marginal and internal adaptation of class II restorations after immediate or delayed composite placement. J Dent 30(5–6):259–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00041-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Ikeda T, Uno S, Tanaka T, Kawakami S, Komatsu H, Sano H (2002) Relation of enamel prism orientation to microtensile bond strength. Am J Dent 15(2):109–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Baratieri LN, Ritter AV (2005) Critical appraisal. To bevel or not in anterior composites. J Esthet Restor Dent 17(4):264–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2005.tb00126.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR, Cordeiro HJ et al (2005) Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent 18(2):135–140

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Baratieri LN, Canabarro S, Lopes GC, Ritter AV (2003) Effect of resin viscosity and enamel beveling on the clinical performance of class V composite restorations: three-year results. Oper Dent 28(5):482–487

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V (2010) Clinical performance of cervical restorations-a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 26(10):993–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.06.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Kearns JO, Barry JG, Fleming GJ (2014) Cuspal deflection and cervical microleakage scores to determine the adhesive potential of universal bonding systems. J Dent 42(8):970–976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.05.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43(9):1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper M, Bresciani E, Goncalves S, Caneppele T (2019) Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-049-C

  42. Fron H, Vergnes JN, Moussally C, Cazier S, Simon AL, Chieze JB, Savard G, Tirlet G, Attal JP (2011) Effectiveness of a new one-step self-etch adhesive in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 2-year results of a randomized controlled practice-based study. Dent Mater 27(3):304–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Ruschel VC, Shibata S, Stolf SC, Chung Y, Baratieri LN, Heymann HO, Walter R (2018) Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 43(3):241–249. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-320-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E (2008) Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 24(1):90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Armstrong SR, Jessop JL, Vargas MA, Zou Y, Qian F, Campbell JA et al (2006) Effects of exogenous collagenase and cholesterol esterase on the durability of the resin-dentin bond. J Adhes Dent 8(3):151–160

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu C, Hashimoto M, Breschi L, Carvalho RM, Ito S (2004) Collagen degradation by host-derived enzymes during aging. J Dent Res 83(3):216–221. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300306

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27(1):17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A (2002) Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 30(7–8):371–382. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(02)00064-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Zhang Z, Wang X, Zhang L, Liang B, Tang T, Fu B, Hannig M (2013) The contribution of chemical bonding to the short- and long-term enamel bond strengths. Dent Mater 29(7):e103–e112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2007) Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 32(1):11–15. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ, Mercante DE, Davidson JM (2005) Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as class V filling materials. Oper Dent 30(3):275–281

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all individual participants who took part in this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Sıhhıye, Ankara, Turkey

    Cansu Atalay, Gul Ozgunaltay & Ayse Ruya Yazici

Authors
  1. Cansu Atalay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gul Ozgunaltay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ayse Ruya Yazici
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cansu Atalay.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atalay, C., Ozgunaltay, G. & Yazici, A.R. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive. Clin Oral Invest 24, 1569–1578 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03052-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03052-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation