Abstract
Abstract
Objective
To evaluate the clinical performance of self versus light-cured universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 18 months.
Materials and methods
Sixty-eight NCCLs in 28 patients were divided into two equal groups; G1: self-cured universal adhesive (Palfique,Tokuyama,Japan) and G2: light-cured universal adhesive (Single Bond Universal,3 M ESPE,USA). Nanohybrid resin composite (Z350XT, 3 M ESPE, USA) was used as a final restoration. Evaluation for fracture, loss of retention, marginal adaptation and discoloration were done after 1 week, 6,12, and 18 months using FDI criteria. Postoperative sensitivity was assessed after 1 week. Chi-Square and Mann-Whitney tests with statistical significance at (P ≤ 0.05) were used for intergroup comparison,while the intragroup one was performed using the Cochran’s Q and Friedman’s tests. Survival rate was analyzed using Kaplan-meier and Log-rank test.
Results
Both groups exhibited fracture and retention loss, however, there was statistically significant difference favoring the control group at 6 months (p = 0.0114,0.0016). For secondary outcomes, marginal adaptation and discoloration revealed no significant differences. For postoperative sensitivity, there was a significant difference favoring the control group (p = 0.0007, 0.0011). Palfique had 1.5 Relative-Risk (RR) after 6 months (95% CI 0.5659–4.2617; P = 0.3928) and 20% less risk of failure after 18 months (RR 0.8) (95% CI 0.4618–1.3858; P = 0.4260). Tested adhesives showed equal survival rate (P = 0.5685).
Conclusions
Both adhesives revealed similar clinical performance in restoring the NCCLs after 18 m, however, the early failure was more frequent in the self-cured universal adhesive.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference29 articles.
1. Teixeira DN, Thomas RZ, Soares PV, Cune MS, Gresnigt MM, Slot DE. Prevalence of noncarious cervical lesions among adults: a systematic review. J Dent. 2020;95:1–7.
2. Rocha AC, Da Rosa WL, Cocco AR, Da Silva AF, Piva E, Lund RG. Influence of surface treatment on composite adhesion in noncarious cervical lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Oper Dent 2018;43:508–19.
3. Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol. 2017;8:1–17.
4. Ilday NO, Sagsoz O, Karatas O, Bayindir YZ, Rifaioglu VT. Dentin bonding performance and nanoleakage properties of universal adhesives in different etching modes. Saudi J Oral Dent Res. 2016:137-46.
5. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Watanabe H, Johnson WW, Latta MA, et al. Comparison between universal adhesives and two‐step self‐etch adhesives in terms of dentin bond fatigue durability in self‐etch mode. Eur J Oral Sci. 2017;125:215–22.