Back to Search Start Over

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the "no-waiting" technique: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors :
de Almeida, Rossana Aboud Matos
Lima, Suellen Nogueira Linares
Nassif, Maria Vitória
Mattos, Natanael Henrique Ribeiro
de Matos, Thalita Paris
de Jesus Tavarez, Rudys Rodolfo
Cardenas, Andres Felipe Millan
Bandeca, Matheus Coelho
Loguercio, Alessandro D.
Source :
Clinical Oral Investigations. Jan2023, Vol. 27 Issue 1, p151-163. 13p. 1 Diagram, 7 Charts.
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this double-blind, randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the 6- and 18-month clinical performances of a new universal adhesive applied in the "no-waiting" (NW) technique to non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Materials and methods: One hundred and seventy-six restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, adhesive strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) strategies with 20 s applications and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the ER and SE strategies with the NW technique. The composite resin restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 and 18 months using the World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance and Wilcoxon test were used for statistical analyses (α = 0.05). Results: No significant differences were observed among any of the groups or criteria after 6 months (p > 0.05). After 18 months, 10 restorations were lost (p > 0.05) (2 with PB-ER [95.5%; 95%CI: 92–100%], 4 with PB-SE [90.9%; 95%CI: 82–98%], 0 with CQ-ER [100%; 95%CI: 92–100%], and 4 with CQ-SE [90.9%; 82–98%]). The restorations performed with the SE strategy showed more marginal discrepancies than those performed with the ER strategy, mainly when the FDI criteria were used (p < 0.05). Those that used the PB-SE showed fewer marginal discrepancies than those that used the CQ-SE (FDI; p < 0.05). A few restorations showed marginal discrepancies after the USPHS analysis (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The results when using the CQ-SE and -ER strategies with the NW technique were similar to those when using the PB-SE and -ER strategies in standard applications to non-carious cervical lesions after 6 and 18 months of clinical evaluation. Clinical relevance: After 6 and 18 months, the application of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick with the "no-waiting" technique showed similar clinical performance compared to the standard application of Prime & Bond Active applied using the standard application time (20 s). Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier RBR-5f9gps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
14326981
Volume :
27
Issue :
1
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Clinical Oral Investigations
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
161517200
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04703-7