Systems In Non-carious Cervical Lesions Research Articles

Does Acid Etching Influence the Adhesion of Universal Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

To evaluate the adhesion of universal adhesive systems to the dentin of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic electronic searches were performed by two independent reviewers into the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December of 2021. Only randomized clinical trials were selected, comparing etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies and using universal adhesive systems in NCCLs. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered into PROSPERO. After the removal of duplicates, 170 articles were identified. In an initial screening of titles and abstracts, 146 records did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were, therefore, excluded. Twenty-four studies were eligible for evaluation of the full text, and four were excluded after this step. Finally, 20 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that applying universal adhesive systems in the etch-and-rinse strategy could lead to better medium-term (>12 to 36 months) retention of NCCL restorations than the self-etch strategy, as well as resulting in lower percentages of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries. However, the use of a self-etching strategy can lead to lower postoperative sensitivity.

Sonic application of one-step self-etch adhesive in composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.

To evaluate the influence of the sonic device on the clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 18 months. Forty patients participated in this study. Eighty restorations were assigned to two groups (n=40): Sonic application and Manual application. After the adhesive application (iBond Self-Etch, Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), NCCLs were restored using composite resin (Charisma, Kulzer, Hanau, Germany). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 18 months both according to the Word Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank and Wilcoxon test for significance in each pair were applied (α=0.05). After 18 months, 38 patients were evaluated. Twenty-three restorations were lost (19 for manual vs. 4 for sonic application). The retention rates (95% confidence interval) were 50% (CI 34.8%-65.1%) for manual application and 84.2% (CI 69.6%-92.6%) for sonic application (p < 0.05). Twelve restorations showed marginal staining (nine for manual vs. three for sonic application; FDI, p < 0.05) and nine some marginal discrepancy (seven for manual vs. two for sonic application; FDI, p < 0.05). No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity and caries recurrence at the time. The sonic application increases the retention rate of iBond Self-Etch after 18 months of clinical evaluation in NCCLs. The application of a simplified self-etch adhesive (iBond Self-Etch) associated to a sonic device seems to be an alternative to improve the clinical behavior in NCCLs.

An 18-month clinical evaluation of prolonged polymerization of a universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of prolonging polymerization time on the 18 months clinical performance of a universal adhesive system used as etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE). Methods140 restorations were randomly placed in 35 subjects according to the following groups: ER10 (light-curing for 10 s); ER40 (light-curing for 40 s); SE10 (light-curing for 10 s) and; SE40 (light-curing for 40 s/1200 mW/cm2). A resin composite was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 18 months by using the FDI criteria. The following outcomes were evaluated: marginal staining, marginal adaptation, spontaneous post-operative sensitivity and recurrence of caries. The differences among the groups were calculated using Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05). ResultsAfter 18 months the retention/fracture rates were 88.9% (95%CI 74.1–95.6%) for ER10, 94.3% (95%CI 91.4–98.5%) for ER40, 77.2% (95%CI 60.1–87.9) for SE10 and 97.2% (95%CI 85.5–99.9%) for SE40. A significant difference was detected in the retention rate when SE10 was compared to the SE40 (p = 0.01). Also, ER40 showed a significant improvement of the marginal adaptation when compared to ER10 (p = 0.01). SignificanceThis is the first study that demonstrates an improvement in the clinical performance of universal adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions when prolonged light-cured was applied.

Enhancing adhesive restoration effectiveness

Dental UpdateVol. 47, No. 7 CommentEnhancing adhesive restoration effectivenessTrevor BurkeTrevor BurkeSearch for more papers by this authorTrevor BurkePublished Online:30 Jul 2020https://doi.org/10.12968/denu.2020.47.7.545AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail View article References 1 Burke FJT, MacKenzie L, Sands P. Suggestions for non-aerosol or reduced-aerosol restorative dentistry (for as long as is necessary). Dent Update 2020; 47: 485–493. Link, Google Scholar2 Shaw K, Martins R, Hadis MA, Burke FJT, Palin WM. “Own label” versus branded commercial dental resin composite materials: mechanical and physical property comparison. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2016; 24: 122–129. Medline, Google Scholar3 Mickenautsch S. How well are GIC product labels related to current systematic review evidence? Dent Update 2011; 38: 634–644. Link, Google Scholar4 Johnsen GF, LeThieu MIC, Hussain B et al.. Own brand label restorative materials – a false bargain? J Dent 2017; 56: 84–98. Medline, Google Scholar5 Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. A practice-based assessment of patients' knowledge of dental materials. Br Dent J 2015; 219: 577–582. Medline, Google Scholar6 Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. A practice-based clinical evaluation of VOCO Ionolux. The Dentist 2017; Sept: 124–128. Google Scholar7 Stewardson DA, Creanor S, Thornley P, Biggs T. Burke FJT et al.. The survival of Class V restorations in general dental practice: part 3, five-year survival. Br Dent J 2012; 212: E14. Medline, Google Scholar8 Burke FJT, Mackenzie L, Shortall ACC. Survival rates of resin composite restorations in loadbearing situations in posterior teeth. Dent Update 2019; 46: 524–536. Link, Google Scholar9 Miletic I, Baraba A, Basso M et al.. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22: 235–247. Medline, Google Scholar10 Inoue S, Van Meerbeck B, Abe Y et al.. Effect of remaining dentine thickness and the use of conditioner on micro-tensile bond strength of a glass-ionomer adhesive. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 445–455. Medline, Google Scholar11 Sauro S, Watson TF, Thompson I et al.. Influence of air-abrasion executed with polyacrylic acid-Bioglass 45S5 on the bonding performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. Eur J Oral Sci 2012; 120: 168–177. Medline, Google Scholar12 da Rosa WL de O, Piva E, da Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43: 765–776. Medline, Google Scholar13 Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper Malr, BrescianiE, Goncalves Sep, Caneppele Tmf. Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 2019; 44: 476–487. Medline, Google Scholar14 Cuevas-Suarez CE, da Rosa WL de O, Lund RG, da Silva AF, Piva E. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 2019; 21: 7–26. Medline, Google Scholar15 Dal-Bianco K, Pellizzaro A, Patzlaft R et al.. Effects of moisture degree and rubbing action on the immediate resin-dentin bond strength. Dent Mater 2006; 12: 1150–1156. Google Scholar16 Loguercio A, Munos MA, Lugue-Martinez I et al.. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance? J Dent 2015; 43: 1060–1070. Medline, Google Scholar FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byTechnique tips: Ten top tips to overcome common mistakes concerning the use of dental materialsStephen J Bonsor25 September 2021 | Dental Update, Vol. 48, No. 8 2 July 2020Volume 47Issue 7ISSN (print): 0305-5000ISSN (online): 2515-589X Metrics History Published online 30 July 2020 Published in print 2 July 2020 Information© George Warman Publications (UK) LimitedPDF download

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions.

Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of two self-etch adhesive systems with total-etch adhesive system in noncarious cervical lesions: An in vivo study.

Background:The growing demands for esthetic restorations have stimulated intensive research in the field of adhesive dentistry. Dental adhesive systems are used to promote adhesion between composite resins and dental structure. In the fundamental principles of adhesion, the primary mechanism contributing to the formation of adhesion is micromechanical bonding between the restoration and the tooth. The bond strength of self-etching adhesives to dentin was found to be almost equal to that of total-etch adhesives. The aim of the present prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two self-etch adhesive systems with total-etch adhesive system in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).Materials and Methods:In each patient, three teeth were randomly assigned according to the adhesive system used to Group A (total-etch adhesive system), Group B (two-bottle self-etch adhesive system), and Group C (one-bottle self-etch adhesive system). The clinical efficacy of these adhesive systems was determined by evaluating the retention rate, marginal integrity, and postoperative sensitivity at the following three levels: baseline, 6 months, and 18 months by following the Modified USPHS criteria introduced by Vanherle et al.Results:In the present study, the retention rate at 18 month in Group A, Group B, and Group C of 96%, 92%, and 92% was observed, respectively. A marginal integrity at 18 months was 88%, 80%, and 84% for Group A, Group B, and Group C, respectively. Postoperative sensitivity at 18 months was 16%, 12%, and 12% for Group A, Group B, and Group C, respectively.Conclusion:The clinical performance of total-etch and self-etch adhesive systems in NCCLs did not differ significantly with regard to the evaluated parameters – retention, marginal integrity, and postoperative sensitivity.

18-month clinical evaluation of a copper-containing universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind, randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the addition of copper nanoparticles (CuNp) on the clinical performance of a universal adhesive system used as etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE). Methods216 restorations were randomly placed in 36 subjects according to the following groups: ERcu = etch-and-rinse with 0.1% CuNp; ERct = etch-and-rinse without CuNp; SEcu = self-etch with 0.1% CuNp; SEct = self-etch without CuNp. Resin composite was placed incrementally and light-cured. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and 6, 12 and 18 months using the FDI and USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using appropriate tests (α = 0.05). ResultsThe addition of CuNp did not increase the clinical performance (FDI / USPHS) of the universal adhesive tested after 18-month when applied in the ER mode (p > 0.05). The addition of CuNp in SE restorations increased the retention rate significantly and decreased the marginal discrepancies after 18 months (p < 0.05). ConclusionThe clinical performance of universal adhesive was significantly increased when applied in the SE mode with the addition of copper nanoparticles. Clinical relevanceThis is the first study that demonstrates a slight improvement in the clinical performance of universal adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions when added CuNp in lower concentration.

Bonding Performance of Simplified Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions at 2-year Follow-up: A Double-blind Randomized Clinical Trial

This study aimed to evaluate the bonding performance of a universal adhesive used according to self-etching or etch-and-rinse protocols in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) and to compare the two protocols with their respective gold standard techniques. This randomized, double-blind clinical study enrolled 34 participants who met the inclusion criteria, 29 of whom returned after two years. They received 152 restorations bonded with one of the three adhesives (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, Adper Single Bond 2, or Clearfil SE Bond) and one of the two bonding techniques tested. The NCCLs were restored with nanocomposite resin (Filtek Supreme). Final contours were done with a fine diamond rotary instrument and polished with rubber points. The restorations were evaluated using the FDI World Dental Federation criteria at baseline (seven days after the restoration procedure), 6, 12, and 24 months. Descriptive statistics, Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman analysis of variance, and least significant difference tests were performed. No statistically significant differences were found in esthetics or the functional and biological evaluated criteria among the adhesive systems and techniques. The Scotchbond Universal system behaved similarly to the conventional etch-and-rinse or self-etching systems in all the adhesion strategies in the evaluated periods.

Although HEMA-Containing Dental Adhesive Systems Have High Hydrophilic Characteristics, Their Clinical Performance Is Similar to HEMA-Free Dental Adhesive Systems for Noncarious Cervical Lesions

Do HEMA-free adhesive systems have better clinical performance than HEMA-containing systems in noncarious cervical lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. da Silva TSP, de Castro RF, Magno MB, Maia LC, da Silva 3 Souza Júnior. J Dent 2018; 74: 1-14. Information not available. Systematic review with meta-analysis.

5-Year Clinical Performance of Resin Composite versus Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative System in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Clinical Relevance A long-term evaluation of the materials' behavior is relevant for Class V restorations in which clinical performance is particularly challenging.

Conversion of a one-step self-etch adhesive into a two-step self-etch adhesive: six-months clinical results in non-carious cervical lesions

PURPOSE: The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions with and without the application of an additional hydrophobic resin coat. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty-four non-carious cervical lesions were selected and randomly assigned to one of the two bonding technique: 1) a one-step self-etch adhesive (Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE) was applied following manufacturer´s instructions; 2) a hydrophobic resin coat (Scotchbond Multipurpose Bonding Agent, 3M ESPE) was applied over the uncured Adper Easy Bond adhesive. All lessons were restored using a microhybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE). Clinical effectiveness was recorded at baseline and after 6-months of clinical service. RESULTS: Two restorations of each group debonded after a 6-months period. The overall clinical success was 93.8%, and no statistical significant differences could be detected for all evaluated criteria within this period. CONCLUSION: The applications of a hydrophobic resin coat over Easy Bond did not increase bonding effectiveness over a 6-months period.

Clinical Evaluation of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Two-year Report

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of two self-etch dental adhesives with Single Bond Plus, a traditional one-bottle total-etch dental adhesive, for the restoration of noncarious cervical lesions. A total of 156 restorations were placed in noncarious cervical lesions with a minimum depth of 1.5 mm. Patients had no chronic periodontal disease and had normal salivary function. Each patient received restorations on three teeth, each bonded with either Adper Single Bond Plus, Adper Easy Bond, or Adper Scotchbond SE dental adhesive. All lesions were restored with Filtek Supreme Plus composite resin. All teeth were isolated with a rubber dam, received a short enamel bevel, and were cleaned with flour of pumice. The adhesives and resin composite were applied following the manufacturers' instructions. Restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline, six months, one year, and two years using modified US Public Health Service criteria. Two-year retention was recorded as 97.3%, 90.5%, and 95.2%, for Single Bond Plus, Scotchbond SE, and Easy Bond, respectively. Statistical analysis did not show a significant difference (p>0.05) in clinical performance between any of the three adhesives after a period of two years.

The Clinical Effectiveness of Various Adhesive Systems: An 18-Month Evaluation

The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive systems over 18 months in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty patients, with at least three noncarious cervical lesions, were enrolled in the study. One operator randomly restored a total of 90 lesions with resin composite (Herculite XRV). The restorations were bonded with either Optibond FL (OF), three-step total-etch; Optibond Solo Plus (OS), two-step total-etch; or Optibond All-In-One (OA), one step self-etch. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and after six, 12, and 18 months using the eight United States Public Health Services criteria. Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests (p<0.05). After 18 months, the retention rate was (OF) 96.5%, (OS) 93.1%, and (OA) 89.7%. Differences among the three adhesive systems for evaluated criteria were not observed in comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages. There was a significant increase in marginal discoloration for (OA) adhesive after 18 months compared with baseline (p=0.011). Other restoration criteria had no statistically significant differences among the three adhesives (p>0.05). With the exception of marginal discoloration, the clinical effectiveness of three types of adhesive systems in NCCLs was acceptable after 18 months. However, using the one-step self-etch adhesive may lead to some marginal discolorations.

Two-year clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions

Objectives Adhesive systems are continuously being introduced to Dentistry, unfortunately often without sufficient clinical validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of cervical restorations done with three different adhesive systems. Material and methods 158 non-carious cervical lesions of 23 patients were restored with a nanofilled composite resin (Filtek Supreme, 3M/ESPE) combined with Single Bond (3M/ESPE, group SI), Clearfil SE (Kuraray Medical Inc., group CL) and Xeno III (De Trey Dentsply, group XE). In groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B, the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin was removed by roughening with a diamond bur before application of the respective adhesive systems. In groups CL-BP and XE-BP, after removal of the outer surface of the sclerotic dentin with the bur, the remaining dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid and the self-etch adhesive systems Clearfil SE and Xeno III were applied, respectively. Lesions were evaluated at baseline, and restorations after 3 months, 1 year and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. Results After 2 years, no significant difference was found between the retention rates of the groups (p >0.05). Although groups CL and SI showed significantly better marginal adaptation than group XE (p<0.05) at 2 years, no significant difference was found between the marginal adaptation of the groups SI-B, CL-B and XE-B (p>0.05). After 2 years no significant difference was observed among the marginal staining results of all groups (p>0.05). Conclusion Although all adhesive systems showed similar retention rates, Clearfil SE and Single Bond showed better marginal adaptation than Xeno III after 2 years of follow-up.

A prospective 8-year evaluation of a mild two-step self-etching adhesive and a heavily filled two-step etch-and-rinse system in non-carious cervical lesions

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical retention to dentin of a two-step self-etching adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond and a two-step etch-and-rinse system PQ1. Methods A total of 119 Class V restorations were placed in non-carious cervical lesions without intentional involvement of the enamel incisal of the lesions. The restorations were evaluated yearly during an 8-year follow-up. Clinical dentin bonding efficiency was determined by the percentage of lost restorations at each of the recalls. Results At 8 years, 112 restorations could be evaluated. Both adhesives fulfilled the ADA 18-month full acceptance criteria for retention with a retention rate of 90.6% for PQ1 and 98.2% for Clearfil SE Bond. The loss rates increased then considerably after 2 and 3 years, respectively. The cumulative loss rates at 8 years were 25.5% for Clearfil SE and 39.3% for PQ1 ( p = 0.12). No significant differences were observed between lesions with sclerotic and non-sclerotic dentin. The size of the lesions did not influence the bonding effectiveness. A lower loss rate was found for the restorations placed in lesions slightly roughened before etching. Conclusion Both adhesive systems showed acceptable short-term clinical retention to dentin, which decreased after long-time in vivo aging, especially for the simplified etch-and-rinse system.

Clinical Evaluation of a Self-Etch Adhesive System in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

All-in one adhesive systems reduce the number of steps and thus possible soures of error that may occur in clinical wage of adhesives, it is hoped that they also have good clinical performance. To evaluate the clinical performance of a self-etch adhesive system--Adper's Prompt L-Pop in non-carious cervical lesions over a six months period. One hundred and eighty-one (181) restorations were placed by one operator for 35 patients. The self-etch adhesive was applied to the cavity and composite was used to restore the teeth. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 3 months and 6 months according to the modified Ryge's criteria. Restorations were monitored for postoperative sensitivity, retention rates and marginal adaptation. At six months, 160 restorations were available for evaluation in 32 patients. The retention rate was 96.3%, postoperative sensitivity was scored Alpha for all restorations (no sensitivity), and 3.7% restorations had marginal adaptation failure at six months. The adhesive system tested exhibited very good clinical performance at the end of six months.

Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions

This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch-and-rinse adhesive and resin composite system (Excite/Tetric Ceram) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Vitremer/3M) in non-carious cervical lesions. Seventy cervical restorations (35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation. All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline, and after 6, 12 and 24 months. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact and McNemar tests. After 2 years, 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated. As much as 78.8% retention rate was recorded for RC restorations, while 100% retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations. Fisher's exact test showed significant differences (p=0.011) for retention. However, there were no significant differences for marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations. The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention (p=0.02), marginal integrity (p=0.002) and anatomic form (p=0.04). Therefore, the one-bottle etch-and-rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC.

Improving Clinical Retention of One-Step Self-Etching Adhesive Systems With an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer

The durability of restorations bonded with one-step self-etching (OSSE) adhesive systems is inferior compared with that of restorations bonded with conventional adhesives. The authors conducted an 18-month randomized clinical study to evaluate the clinical performance of two OSSE systems in noncarious cervical lesions applied as recommended or with an extra layer of hydrophobic adhesive layer after 18 months of clinical service. Thirty participants, each of whom had at least two pairs of similar-sized noncarious cervical lesions, took part in this study. The authors placed 120 restorations, 30 in each of four groups: Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) (CS) and iBond Gluma inside (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) (IB), and Clearfil S3 Bond (CSB) and iBond Gluma inside (IBB) with an extra layer of hydrophobic adhesive applied on top of them. They placed the restorations incrementally, using a resin-based composite. The authors evaluated the restorations at baseline and at 18 months following modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. At 18 months, the retention rate for the IB group was statistically lower than those for the CS, IBB and CSB groups. Marginal discoloration occurred in all groups and was statistically worse in the IB group. The conversion of the iBond Gluma inside and Clearfil S3 Bond adhesive systems into two-step systems by means of applying an extra hydrophobic adhesive layer improved the clinical performance of these materials after 18 months of clinical service. The application of an extra hydrophobic adhesive layer over OSSE adhesive systems, layers improved the OSSE systems clinical performance, mainly in terms of retention rate.

Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions

Objectives This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of S 3 Bond (S3) and G-Bond (GB) in 108 non-carious cervical lesions. Methods Twenty-three patients, 12 male and 11 female (mean age: 61.8 years, range: 30–79 years) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry, participated in the study. Each patient received both materials randomly. All restorations (53 restorations for S3 and 55 restorations for GB) were placed by one dentist. The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6 months, 1 and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran Q test and Fisher's exact test. Results One restoration of each material was lost during 2 years. The only minor clinical problem was the integrity of the enamel margin. Slight marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations of both S3 and GB. There was no significant difference in the clinical performance between S3 and GB for each variable. Conclusions Under the protocol used in this study, S3 and GB have demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 2 years.

One-year Clinical Evaluation of Five Single-step Self-etch Adhesive Systems in Non-carious Cervical Lesions

This study evaluated the clinical performance of five single-step self-etch adhesive systems over a one-year follow-up period in 98 restorations. Independent evaluations were performed at baseline (one week), after three months, six months, and one year, by two trained examiners using the modified US Public Health Service rating criteria. Color match, marginal integrity, anatomical form, surface roughness, marginal or interfacial staining, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries were evaluated. Results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of p<0.05. After one year, the restorations were re-evaluated and 100% retention rate was recorded. No caries were detected in association with any of the restorations. Marginal adaptation was the only measure that showed a slight deterioration over time, and there were no significant differences in this factor among the adhesive systems tested (p=0.464).