Clinical evaluation of a self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Tanta, Tanta, Egypt.
American journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 0.85). 11/2008; 21(5):327-30.
Source: PubMed


To evaluate the clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive in Class V non-carious lesions with and without acid etching procedures.
A total of 125 Class V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) with incisal or occlusal margins in enamel and gingival margins in dentin/cementum were selected and restored with Clearfil SE Bond self-etch adhesive and Clearfil APX resin composite. All cavities were restored using two techniques; after etching the whole cavity for 20 seconds and without acid etching (control). The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 1- and 2-year using modified USPHS criteria.
No loss of restorations was recorded after 1 and 2 years for the two restorative techniques. There was no significant difference between the baseline and 2-year results for any of the tested technique. However, restorations made after acid etching showed less marginal discoloration at the enamel margins.

19 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the bond strength of seven adhesive systems to human cementum, and to assess the promoted surface roughness. Extracted human canines were used for the present study. The mesial surface from the cervical third of the roots were ground flat with wet 600-grit silicon carbide paper and bonded. Seven adhesive systems were employed: an etch-and-rinse adhesive (Single Bond), two two-step self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond and Resulcin Aquaprime) and four one-step self-etching (One-up Bond F, Prompt-L-Pop, Etch and Prime 3.0 and NRC+Prime&Bond NT). Composite build-ups were constructed and stored in a humid environment for 24h at 37 degrees C. Specimens were sectioned into 1mm(2) beams and tested for microtensile bond strength (MTBS). Additional surfaces were conditioned for atomic force microscopy (AFM) analysis. Results were analyzed with ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls tests (P<0.05). Single Bond showed the highest MTBS values. No differences were found between Resulcin Aquaprime, One-up Bond and Prompt-L-Pop. Clearfil SE Bond, Etch and Prime and NRC+Prime&Bond NT obtained the lowest bond strength values. H(3)PO(4) acid treatment of cementum and Resulcin Aquaprime showed the highest nanoroughness parameters and One-up Bond the lowest. The etch-and-rinse adhesive and the two-step self-etching adhesive with the lowest pH value promoted the highest bond strength to human cementum surfaces.
    Journal of dentistry 08/2010; 38(8):678-85. DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.05.011 · 2.75 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 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. 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. 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. 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.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 09/2010; 26(9):940-6. DOI:10.1016/ · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A static bond-strength test is often regarded as clinically less relevant, since such abrupt loading of the adhesive-tooth bond clinically never occurs. Therefore, dynamic fatigue testing is often claimed to better predict the clinical effectiveness of adhesives. To measure the micro-tensile fatigue resistance (μTFR) of adhesives bonded to dentin, and to compare their μTFR to their micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS). The bonding effectiveness (including fracture analysis) of three adhesives (OptiBond FL, Kerr: 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or 3-E&Ra; Clearfil SE, Kuraray: 2-step self-etch adhesive or 2-SEa; G-Bond, GC: 1-step self-etch adhesive or 1-SEa) was measured by means of both a dynamic μTFR and a static μTBS approach. Preparation and test set-up of the micro-specimens were identical for both tests. In fatigue, specimens were tested with a wide range of selected loads at 2Hz and at 10Hz until failure, or until 10(4) cycles were reached. At 2Hz, the μTFR was also measured after 3-month water storage. The μTFR was determined using a logistic regression model. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD multiple comparisons test were used to determine statistical differences in μTBS. The 1-SEa recorded significantly lower values in μTFR at 10Hz and in μTBS than the 2-SEa and 3-E&Ra. The 1-SEa and the 2-SEa performed significantly lower in μTFR than the 3-E&Ra, when tested at 2Hz after 3-month water storage. Fatigue testing at 2Hz after 1-week water storage did not reveal any differences in μTFR between the three adhesives. The 3-E&Ra performed best in terms of bonding effectiveness, irrespective of the experimental condition or test used. The μTBS test proved once more to be a reliable laboratory test in ranking contemporary adhesives on their bonding effectiveness.
    Dental materials: official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 11/2010; 26(11):1068-76. DOI:10.1016/ · 3.77 Impact Factor
Show more