We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website and to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage. You will find more information in our privacy policy. By continuing to use our website, you agree to this. Yes, I agree
International Poster Journal of Dentistry and Oral Medicine
Login:
username:

password:

Plattform:

Forgotten password?

Registration

Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), No. 4     15. Dec. 2014
Int Poster J Dent Oral Med 16 (2014), No. 4  (15.12.2014)

Poster 827, Language: English


Self-Etch and Etch-and-Rinse adhesives in class V restorations: Clinical performance over 2-years
Faria, Sandra / Manarte-Monteiro, Patrícia / Gavinha, Sandra / Costa, Liliana / Manso, Maria Conceição
Introduction: The cervical dental hard tissues loss is a clinical model for evaluating the performance of adhesive restorations in non-retentive preparations.
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance at 2-years, of Self-Etch (SE) and Etch-and-Rinse (ER) adhesives in composite restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL).
Material and Methods: Prospective clinical trial, approved by UFP-FHS Ethics Committee, in 29 adult patients with 77 restorations randomly allocated according to two groups (microhybrid composite/adhesive system); SE Group: 43 restorations, Amaris®/FuturabondNR); ER Group: 34 restorations, Amaris®/SolobondM (Voco GmbH). All restorations were evaluated (aesthetic, functional and biological parameters) at baseline and at 2 years, using USPHS criteria and Hickel and colleagues (2007) recommendations, by three calibrated (ICC≥0.928) examiners. SE and ER efficacy (success rate) was evaluated at 2 years follow-up; Statistical analysis with nonparametric tests (alpha=0.05).
Results: At 2 years, the SE (n=40; 7% dropout) and ER (n=34; 0% dropout) restorations showed success rates of 100% (Fisher /Chi-square tests, p>0.05), respectively. No significant differences between SE/ER (p> 0.05) regarding aesthetic, functional and biological restorations performance except for surface staining (p=0.012), for wear (p=0.012), patient's view (p=0.012) and tooth integrity (p=0.009), with less changes for ER restorations. Regarding baseline-2 years follow-up, SE and ER restorations showed significant changes in aesthetic (McNemar/Wilcoxon tests.; p<0.020 and p<0.008, respectively), functional (p<0.012 and p<0.014) and biological (p<0.001 and p=0.009) parameters.
Discussion and Conclusions: The effectiveness of restorations with SE and RE is high and similar at two-years follow-up. Aesthetic, functional and biological performance of restoration with ER appears to be better than with SE adhesive. However, a continuous and longer evaluation of these adhesive restorations longevity is necessary. The adhesives ER and SE in composite restorations of NCCL indicate a clinically acceptance and a comparable performance in the mean-term evaluation.

Keywords: self-etch adhesives, etch-and-rinse adhesives, class V restorations, clinical trial, adhesives clinical performance, composite restorations effectiveness

Conference/Exhibition:
6th ConsEuro Meeting
9.-11. May 2013
Espaces CAP15, 1-13 quai de Grenelle, 75015 Paris, France