Lawson Nathaniel C, Robles Augusto, Fu Chin-Chuan, Lin Chee Paul, Sawlani Kanchan, Burgess John O
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Clinical and Community Sciences, Division of Biomaterials, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA.
University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Dentistry, Restorative Sciences, Division of General Dentistry, 1919 7th Avenue South, Birmingham, AL 35205, USA.
J Dent. 2015 Oct;43(10):1229-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009. Epub 2015 Jul 29.
To compare the clinical performance of Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive used in self- and total-etch modes and two-bottle Scotchbond™ Multi-purpose Adhesive in total-etch mode for Class 5 non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).
37 adults were recruited with 3 or 6 NCCLs (>1.5mm deep). Teeth were isolated, and a short cervical bevel was prepared. Teeth were restored randomly with Scotchbond Universal total-etch, Scotchbond Universal self-etch or Scotchbond Multi-purpose followed with a composite resin. Restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months for marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries, and sensitivity to cold using modified USPHS Criteria. Patients and evaluators were blinded. Logistic and linear regression models using a generalized estimating equation were applied to evaluate the effects of time and adhesive material on clinical assessment outcomes over the 24 month follow-up period. Kaplan-Meier method was used to compare the retention between adhesive materials.
Clinical performance of all adhesive materials deteriorated over time for marginal adaptation, and discoloration (p<0.0001). Both Scotchbond Universal self-etch and Scotchbond Multi-purpose materials were more than three times as likely to contribute to less satisfying performance in marginal discoloration over time than Scotchbond Universal total-etch. The retention rates up to 24 months were 87.6%, 94.9% and 100% for Scotchbond Multi-purpose and Scotchbond Universal self-etch and total-etch, respectively.
Scotchbond Universal in self- and total- etch modes performed similar to or better than Scotchbond Multipurpose, respectively.
24 month evaluation of a universal adhesive indicates acceptable clinical performance, particularly in a total-etch mode.
比较Scotchbond™通用型粘结剂在自酸蚀和全酸蚀模式下以及双瓶装Scotchbond™多功能粘结剂在全酸蚀模式下用于治疗5类非龋性颈部病变(NCCLs)的临床性能。
招募了37名成年人,每人有3颗或6颗NCCLs(深度>1.5mm)。隔离牙齿,制备短颈斜面。随机用Scotchbond通用型全酸蚀粘结剂、Scotchbond通用型自酸蚀粘结剂或Scotchbond多功能粘结剂进行粘结,随后用复合树脂修复。使用改良的美国公共卫生服务标准在基线、6个月、12个月和24个月时对修复体进行边缘适应性、边缘变色、继发龋和冷敏感评估。患者和评估者均不知情。应用使用广义估计方程的逻辑回归和线性回归模型来评估在24个月随访期内时间和粘结材料对临床评估结果的影响。采用Kaplan-Meier方法比较粘结材料之间的保留率。
随着时间的推移,所有粘结材料的边缘适应性和变色的临床性能均下降(p<0.0001)。随着时间的推移,Scotchbond通用型自酸蚀粘结剂和Scotchbond多功能粘结剂在边缘变色方面导致性能不太令人满意的可能性是Scotchbond通用型全酸蚀粘结剂的三倍多。Scotchbond多功能粘结剂、Scotchbond通用型自酸蚀粘结剂和全酸蚀粘结剂在24个月时的保留率分别为87.6%、94.9%和100%。
Scotchbond通用型粘结剂在自酸蚀和全酸蚀模式下的性能分别与Scotchbond多功能粘结剂相似或优于Scotchbond多功能粘结剂。
对一种通用型粘结剂进行24个月的评估表明其临床性能可接受,尤其是在全酸蚀模式下。