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

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

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

Operative Dentistry

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

69 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 language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1474-1485
Number of pages	12
Journal	Dental Materials
Volume	36
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007
State	Published - 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

Keywords

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

Access

10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

OpenUrl availability

Full text

Cite this

@article{acd3383a2e2f4470a15926ecdcf9cf62,

title = "Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial",

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.",

keywords = "Etch-and-rinse, Randomized clinical trial, Selective enamel etching, Self-etch, Universal adhesives",

author = "{de Paris Matos}, Thalita and Jorge Perdig{\~a}o and {de Paula}, Eloisa and Fabiana Coppla and Viviane Hass and Scheffer, {Rafael F.} and Alessandra Reis and Loguercio, {Alessandro D.}",

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 Coordena{\c c}{\~a}o de Aperfei{\c c}oamento de Pessoal de N{\'i}vel 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: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Academy of Dental Materials",

year = "2020",

month = nov,

doi = "10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "36",

pages = "1474--1485",

journal = "Dental Materials",

issn = "0109-5641",

publisher = "Elsevier Science",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive

T2 - A randomized double-blind trial

AU - de Paris Matos, Thalita

AU - Perdigão, Jorge

AU - de Paula, Eloisa

AU - Coppla, Fabiana

AU - Hass, Viviane

AU - Scheffer, Rafael F.

AU - Reis, Alessandra

AU - Loguercio, Alessandro D.

N1 - 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

PY - 2020/11

Y1 - 2020/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Etch-and-rinse

KW - Randomized clinical trial

KW - Selective enamel etching

KW - Self-etch

KW - Universal adhesives

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090746069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85090746069&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

DO - 10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

M3 - Article

C2 - 32933775

AN - SCOPUS:85090746069

SN - 0109-5641

VL - 36

SP - 1474

EP - 1485

JO - Dental Materials

JF - Dental Materials

IS - 11

ER -

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

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

Access

OpenUrl availability

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this