Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial

Thalita de Paris Matos, Jorge Perdigão, Eloisa de Paula, Fabiana Coppla, Viviane Hass, Rafael F. Scheffer, Alessandra Reis, Alessandro D. Loguercio

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the five-year clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU; 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: SU-ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; SU-ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; SU-Set: selective enamel etching; and SU-SE: self-etch. A nanofilled composite resin was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 5 years using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The survival rates (retention/fractures) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. For the secondary outcomes, Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank was applied (α = 0.05). Results: After 5 years the recall rate was 86%. The retention/fracture rates were 93% for Erm and ERd, 88.4% for SEet and 81.4% for SE. A significant difference was observed for SE vs. ERd and SE vs. ERm (p = 0.01). Also, marginal discoloration and adaptation showed significant differences with ERm and ERd resulting in fewer marginal discrepancies than SE (p < 0.05). Significance: After 5 years, the clinical behavior of the universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse strategy was better when compared to the self-etch strategy. The use of selective enamel etching is highly recommended for the self-etch strategy. The FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria showed similar results after 5 years.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1474-1485
Number of pages12
JournalDental Materials
Volume36
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2020

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
This study was performed by Thalita P. Matos as partial fulfillment of her fellowship degree at the State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. This study was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants 303332/2017-4 (AR) and 308286/2019-7 (ADL) and Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (TPM)

Funding Information:
This study was performed by Thalita P. Matos as partial fulfillment of her fellowship degree at the State University of Ponta Grossa (UEPG), Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. This study was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants 303332/2017-4 (AR) and 308286/2019-7 (ADL) and Coordena??o de Aperfei?oamento de Pessoal de N?vel Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001 (TPM)

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Academy of Dental Materials

Copyright:
Copyright 2020 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Etch-and-rinse
  • Randomized clinical trial
  • Selective enamel etching
  • Self-etch
  • Universal adhesives

PubMed: MeSH publication types

  • Journal Article

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this