Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Suleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Jun;16(3):889-97. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0565-4. Epub 2011 May 21.
A 2-year randomized, controlled prospective study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a "gold-standard" three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious Class-V lesions. The null hypothesis tested was that the one-step self-etch adhesive does perform clinically equally well as the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. A total of 161 lesions in 26 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X (Kuraray). The restorations were bonded either with the "all-in-one" adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray) or with the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL (Kerr). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months, 1 and 2 years, regarding their retention, marginal adapation, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensivity. Retention loss, severe marginal defects and/or discoloration that needed intervention (repair or replacement) and the occurrence of caries were considered as clinical failures. The recall rate at 2 years was 93.8%. Only one Clearfil S3 Bond restoration was lost at the 2-year recall. All other restorations were clinically acceptable. The number of restorations with defect-free margins decreased severely during the 2-year study period (to 6.7% and 25.3% for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL, respectively). The Clearfil S3 Bond restorations presented significantly more small marginal defects at the enamel side than the Optibond FL restorations (Clearfil S3 Bond: 93.3%; Optibond FL: 73.3%; p = 0.000). Superficial marginal discoloration increased in both groups (to 53.3% and 36% for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL, respectively) and was also more pronounced in the Clearfil S3 Bond group (p = 0.007). After 2 years, the simplified one-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond and the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive Optibond FL were clinically equally successful, even though both adhesives were characterized by progressive degradation in marginal integrity. Clearfil S3 Bond exhibited more small enamel marginal defects and superficial marginal discolorations.
一项为期 2 年的随机、对照前瞻性研究评估了一步自酸蚀黏结剂和“金标准”三步酸蚀-冲洗黏结剂在非龋性 V 类窝洞中的临床效果。检验的零假设是一步自酸蚀黏结剂在临床性能上与三步酸蚀-冲洗黏结剂相当。共有 26 名患者的 161 个窝洞用 Clearfil AP-X（可乐丽）修复。用“全合一”黏结剂 Clearfil S3 Bond（可乐丽）或三步酸蚀-冲洗黏结剂 Optibond FL（ Kerr）进行黏结。在基线、6 个月、1 年和 2 年时，评估保留率、边缘适应性、边缘变色、龋病发生、牙髓活力保存和术后敏感情况。保留率下降、严重的边缘缺陷和/或需要干预（修复或更换）的变色以及龋病的发生被认为是临床失败。2 年后的召回率为 93.8%。在 2 年的召回期内，只有一个 Clearfil S3 Bond 修复体丢失。所有其他修复体均临床可接受。在 2 年的研究期间，无缺陷边缘的修复体数量严重减少（Clearfil S3 Bond 组为 6.7%，Optibond FL 组为 25.3%）。Clearfil S3 Bond 修复体在釉质侧的微小边缘缺陷明显多于 Optibond FL 修复体（Clearfil S3 Bond：93.3%；Optibond FL：73.3%；p=0.000）。两组的边缘浅层变色均增加（Clearfil S3 Bond 组为 53.3%，Optibond FL 组为 36%），且在 Clearfil S3 Bond 组更为明显（p=0.007）。2 年后，简化的一步自酸蚀黏结剂 Clearfil S3 Bond 和三步酸蚀-冲洗黏结剂 Optibond FL 在临床应用中均取得了成功，尽管两种黏结剂的边缘完整性均逐渐下降。Clearfil S3 Bond 表现出更多的微小釉质边缘缺陷和浅层边缘变色。
