TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis
AU - Ritter, André V.
AU - Heymann, Harald O.
AU - Swift, Edward J.
AU - Sturdevant, John R.
AU - Wilder, Aldridge D.
PY - 2008/7
Y1 - 2008/7
N2 - This randomized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive (iBond) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etchprime-bond adhesive (Gluma Solid Bond, SB). One-hundred and five lesions were randomly assigned to four groups according to adhesive, sclerosis scale and technique: 1) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=26); 2) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=28); 3) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=25) and 4) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=26). A microfilled composite (Durafill VS) was used as the restorative material. The restorations were evaluated for retention, color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, cavosurface margin discoloration, secondary caries, pre- and post-operative sensitivity, surface texture and fracture at insertion (baseline), 6, 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria (Alfa=excellent; Bravo=clinically acceptable; Charlie=clinically unacceptable). There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation (4%-32%) and marginal discoloration (18%-60%) in Groups 2, 3 and 4, but all groups had <5% Charlie scores at 6 months and <10% Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration, respectively. However, it should be noted that 13% of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years.
AB - This randomized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive (iBond) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etchprime-bond adhesive (Gluma Solid Bond, SB). One-hundred and five lesions were randomly assigned to four groups according to adhesive, sclerosis scale and technique: 1) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=26); 2) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 (n=28); 3) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=25) and 4) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 (n=26). A microfilled composite (Durafill VS) was used as the restorative material. The restorations were evaluated for retention, color match, marginal adaptation, anatomic form, cavosurface margin discoloration, secondary caries, pre- and post-operative sensitivity, surface texture and fracture at insertion (baseline), 6, 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria (Alfa=excellent; Bravo=clinically acceptable; Charlie=clinically unacceptable). There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation (4%-32%) and marginal discoloration (18%-60%) in Groups 2, 3 and 4, but all groups had <5% Charlie scores at 6 months and <10% Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration, respectively. However, it should be noted that 13% of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=46949096805&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=46949096805&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2341/07-128
DO - 10.2341/07-128
M3 - Article
C2 - 18666493
AN - SCOPUS:46949096805
SN - 0361-7734
VL - 33
SP - 370
EP - 378
JO - Operative dentistry
JF - Operative dentistry
IS - 4
ER -