A new universal simplified adhesive

36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial

Alessandro D. Loguercio, Eloisa Andrade De Paula, Viviane Hass, Issis Luque-Martinez, Alessandra Reis, Jorge Perdigão

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

61 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Statement of the problem It is still debatable which technique should be used with universal adhesives, either etch-and-rinse (wet or dry) or self-etch strategy (with or without selective enamel etching). Purpose of the study To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M ESPE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods/materials Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set: selective enamel etching; and SE: self-etch. The same composite resin was inserted for all restorations in up to 3 increments. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 18-, and 36-months using both the FDI and the USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α = 0.05). Results Eight restorations (ERm: 1; ERd: 1; Set: 1 and SE: 5) were lost after 36 months, but only significant for SE when compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in 6.8% of the restorations (groups ERm, ERd, and Set) and 17.5% of the restorations (group SE), with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline using the FDI criteria (p < 0.04), while statistical significance was reached only for SE when compared with baseline using the USPHS criteria (p < 0.03). Twenty-eight and 49 restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS and FDI criteria, respectively, with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions While there was no statistical difference among bonding strategies when a universal adhesive was used, there were signs of degradation when the universal adhesive was applied in SE mode. The FDI criteria remain more sensitive than the USPHS criteria, especially for the criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1083-1092
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Dentistry
Volume43
Issue number9
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 1 2015

Fingerprint

United States Public Health Service
Adhesives
Clinical Trials
tetrachloroisophthalonitrile
Dentin
Dental Enamel
Staining and Labeling
Composite Resins
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Clinical trial
  • Dental bonding
  • Universal adhesives

Cite this

A new universal simplified adhesive : 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. / Loguercio, Alessandro D.; De Paula, Eloisa Andrade; Hass, Viviane; Luque-Martinez, Issis; Reis, Alessandra; Perdigão, Jorge.

In: Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 43, No. 9, 01.09.2015, p. 1083-1092.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Loguercio, AD, De Paula, EA, Hass, V, Luque-Martinez, I, Reis, A & Perdigão, J 2015, 'A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial', Journal of Dentistry, vol. 43, no. 9, pp. 1083-1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005
Loguercio, Alessandro D. ; De Paula, Eloisa Andrade ; Hass, Viviane ; Luque-Martinez, Issis ; Reis, Alessandra ; Perdigão, Jorge. / A new universal simplified adhesive : 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. In: Journal of Dentistry. 2015 ; Vol. 43, No. 9. pp. 1083-1092.
@article{7c02948399bc4c799b447f1232143670,
title = "A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial",
abstract = "Statement of the problem It is still debatable which technique should be used with universal adhesives, either etch-and-rinse (wet or dry) or self-etch strategy (with or without selective enamel etching). Purpose of the study To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M ESPE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods/materials Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set: selective enamel etching; and SE: self-etch. The same composite resin was inserted for all restorations in up to 3 increments. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 18-, and 36-months using both the FDI and the USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α = 0.05). Results Eight restorations (ERm: 1; ERd: 1; Set: 1 and SE: 5) were lost after 36 months, but only significant for SE when compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in 6.8{\%} of the restorations (groups ERm, ERd, and Set) and 17.5{\%} of the restorations (group SE), with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline using the FDI criteria (p < 0.04), while statistical significance was reached only for SE when compared with baseline using the USPHS criteria (p < 0.03). Twenty-eight and 49 restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS and FDI criteria, respectively, with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions While there was no statistical difference among bonding strategies when a universal adhesive was used, there were signs of degradation when the universal adhesive was applied in SE mode. The FDI criteria remain more sensitive than the USPHS criteria, especially for the criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation.",
keywords = "Clinical trial, Dental bonding, Universal adhesives",
author = "Loguercio, {Alessandro D.} and {De Paula}, {Eloisa Andrade} and Viviane Hass and Issis Luque-Martinez and Alessandra Reis and Jorge Perdig{\~a}o",
year = "2015",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "43",
pages = "1083--1092",
journal = "Journal of Dentistry",
issn = "0300-5712",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A new universal simplified adhesive

T2 - 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial

AU - Loguercio, Alessandro D.

AU - De Paula, Eloisa Andrade

AU - Hass, Viviane

AU - Luque-Martinez, Issis

AU - Reis, Alessandra

AU - Perdigão, Jorge

PY - 2015/9/1

Y1 - 2015/9/1

N2 - Statement of the problem It is still debatable which technique should be used with universal adhesives, either etch-and-rinse (wet or dry) or self-etch strategy (with or without selective enamel etching). Purpose of the study To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M ESPE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods/materials Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set: selective enamel etching; and SE: self-etch. The same composite resin was inserted for all restorations in up to 3 increments. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 18-, and 36-months using both the FDI and the USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α = 0.05). Results Eight restorations (ERm: 1; ERd: 1; Set: 1 and SE: 5) were lost after 36 months, but only significant for SE when compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in 6.8% of the restorations (groups ERm, ERd, and Set) and 17.5% of the restorations (group SE), with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline using the FDI criteria (p < 0.04), while statistical significance was reached only for SE when compared with baseline using the USPHS criteria (p < 0.03). Twenty-eight and 49 restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS and FDI criteria, respectively, with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions While there was no statistical difference among bonding strategies when a universal adhesive was used, there were signs of degradation when the universal adhesive was applied in SE mode. The FDI criteria remain more sensitive than the USPHS criteria, especially for the criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation.

AB - Statement of the problem It is still debatable which technique should be used with universal adhesives, either etch-and-rinse (wet or dry) or self-etch strategy (with or without selective enamel etching). Purpose of the study To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M ESPE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods/materials Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set: selective enamel etching; and SE: self-etch. The same composite resin was inserted for all restorations in up to 3 increments. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 18-, and 36-months using both the FDI and the USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α = 0.05). Results Eight restorations (ERm: 1; ERd: 1; Set: 1 and SE: 5) were lost after 36 months, but only significant for SE when compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in 6.8% of the restorations (groups ERm, ERd, and Set) and 17.5% of the restorations (group SE), with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline using the FDI criteria (p < 0.04), while statistical significance was reached only for SE when compared with baseline using the USPHS criteria (p < 0.03). Twenty-eight and 49 restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS and FDI criteria, respectively, with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05). Conclusions While there was no statistical difference among bonding strategies when a universal adhesive was used, there were signs of degradation when the universal adhesive was applied in SE mode. The FDI criteria remain more sensitive than the USPHS criteria, especially for the criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation.

KW - Clinical trial

KW - Dental bonding

KW - Universal adhesives

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939565792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939565792&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

DO - 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 1083

EP - 1092

JO - Journal of Dentistry

JF - Journal of Dentistry

SN - 0300-5712

IS - 9

ER -