Two-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etching adhesives in the restoration of cervical lesions
- 28 March 2008
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Clinical Oral Investigations
- Vol. 12 (3), 225-232
- https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-008-0193-9
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two different one-step self-etching adhesives (Hybrid Bond/Sun Medical, Xeno III/Dentsply) in adhesive cervical resin composite restorations. In accordance with a split-mouth study design, 50 patients (57.3 ± 13.5) received at least one pair of restorations. In each of two comparable cervical cavities, either the adhesive systems Hybrid Bond or Xeno III was used with the resin composite Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE). After 6, 12 and 24 months, the restorations were scored according to the Ryge and California Dental Association criteria. After 2 years, the resulting scores (percent) of the Ryge evaluation for the groups Hybrid Bond/ Filtek Supreme and Xeno III/ Filtek Supreme were marginal integrity, Alpha (92/78), Bravo (8/2), Charlie (0/0) and Delta (0/10); anatomic form, Alpha (92/82), Bravo (8/8) and Charlie (0/10); secondary caries, Alpha (100/100) and Bravo (0/0); marginal discoloration, Alpha (80/84), Bravo (20/12), Charlie (0/0) and not available (0/4); color match, Oscar (39/47), Alpha (51/45), Bravo (10/4), Charlie (0/0) and not available (0/4); surface, Romeo (78/69), Sierra (22/22), Tango (0/0) and Victor (0/10); tooth vitality, Alpha (98/94), Bravo (2/6); and integrity of tooth, alpha 1 (96/96) and alpha 2 (4/4). After 2 years, all Hybrid Bond restorations were retained and showed clinically acceptable results, while five Xeno III restorations were lost in part or in toto. For marginal integrity, anatomic form and surface, significant differences (p < 0.05) were found but did not prove statistically significant after Bonferroni adjustment.Keywords
This publication has 35 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation – testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making*Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 2007
- Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materialsClinical Oral Investigations, 2007
- Resin composites: strength of the bond to dentin versus mechanical propertiesClinical Oral Investigations, 2006
- Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites: 2-year follow-upClinical Oral Investigations, 2006
- Two-year evaluation of a new nano-ceramic restorative materialClinical Oral Investigations, 2006
- Two-year clinical performance of a nanofiller vs a fine-particle hybrid resin compositeClinical Oral Investigations, 2006
- OPTIONS FOR DENTIN BONDINGJournal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2006
- Self-etch vs etch-and-rinse adhesives: effect of thermo-mechanical fatigue loading on marginal quality of bonded resin composite restorationsDental Materials, 2005
- A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamelDental Materials, 2005
- POSITIONING SELF-ETCHING ADHESIVES: VERSUS OR IN ADDITION TO PHOSPHORIC ACID ETCHING?Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry, 2004