Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Denizli Dental Hospital, Denizli, Turkey.
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Mar;23(3):1443-1452. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2. Epub 2018 Aug 14.
The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period.
Eighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers' instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests.
The 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).
The three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs.
Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.
本随机、对照、前瞻性临床试验旨在评估和比较三种不同通用粘结剂在使用流动性通用复合树脂修复非龋性颈(NCCL)时的性能,为期 18 个月。
一名医生为 18 名患者共修复了 99 处 NCCL。根据使用的粘结剂系统,将 NCCL 分为三组:Clearfil Universal Bond(CU)、iBond Universal(IU)和 G-Premio Bond(GP)。不进行釉质斜面预备,也不进行机械固位。在粘结处理前,用 37%磷酸进行选择性酸蚀。按照制造商的说明应用粘结剂系统,并用流动性复合树脂(G-ænial Universal Flo)修复病变。修复体即刻放置后进行修整和抛光,并在放置后一周(基线)和 6、12 和 18 个月时,根据改良的 USPHS 标准,对保留、边缘变色、边缘适合性、敏感性、表面质地和颜色匹配进行评分。采用卡方检验进行描述性统计。
18 个月的召回率为 88.8%,CU、IU 和 GP 的保留率分别为 100%、96.8%和 100%。无修复体发生术后敏感和继发龋。18 个月后,CU、IU 和 GP 组的边缘适合性的 alpha 评分相似(CU 93.1%、IU 90%、GP 81.8%)和边缘变色的 alpha 评分相似(CU 100%、IU 90%、GP 87.9%)。10 个(CU 2、IU 3、GP 5)修复体的表面质地得 Bravo 分,3 个(CU 2、GP 1)修复体的颜色匹配得 Bravo 分。在评估的任何标准中,三种测试粘结剂之间均无统计学差异(p>0.05)。
在 18 个月的随访中,三种粘结剂系统在修复 NCCL 方面表现相似。
通用粘结剂可成功应用于 NCCL 的修复。