A New Dual-cure Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-month Randomized Multicenter Clinical Trial
| Autor: | E Gomes de Albuquerque, M de Oliveira Barceleiro, L Augusto Poubel, S Soares Marins, Alessandro Dourado Loguercio, J J de Souza, Flávio Warol, F Signorelli Calazans, Thalita de Paris Matos, Alessandra Reis |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
Dental Cements
Dentistry 02 engineering and technology Dental bonding Dental Caries Composite Resins Tooth Cervix law.invention 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Randomized controlled trial law Dentin Humans Medicine Clinical significance Dental Restoration Permanent General Dentistry Not evaluated business.industry Dental Bonding 030206 dentistry Dental Marginal Adaptation 021001 nanoscience & nanotechnology Confidence interval Resin Cements Clinical trial medicine.anatomical_structure Dentin-Bonding Agents 0210 nano-technology business |
| Zdroj: | Operative Dentistry. 45:E255-E270 |
| ISSN: | 1559-2863 0361-7734 |
| DOI: | 10.2341/19-144-c |
| Popis: | Clinical Relevance Non-carious cervical lesion restorations using a dual-cure universal adhesive in self-etch and etch-and-rinse mode showed satisfactory clinical performance after 18 months. SUMMARY Objectives: The objective of this multicenter, double-blind, split-mouth randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new dual-cure universal adhesive system (Futurabond U, Voco GmBH) when applied using different strategies over a period of 18 months. Methods and Materials: Fifty patients participated in this study. Two hundred non-carious cervical lesions were restored using the adhesive Futurabond U according to four adhesive strategies (n=50 per group): only self-etch (SEE), selective enamel etching + self-etch (SET), etch-and-rinse with dry dentin (ERDry), and etch-and-rinse with wet dentin (ERWet). After the adhesive application, cavities were restored using Admira Fusion composite resin. These restorations were evaluated according to FDI World Dental Federation criteria for the following characteristics: retention/fracture, marginal adaptation, marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and caries recurrence. Results: After 18 months, only four patients (12 months: one patient, n=4 restorations; and 18 months: three patients, n=12 restorations) were not evaluated. Fourteen restorations were lost after 18 months of clinical evaluation (four for SEE, three for SET, three for ERDry, and four for ERWet). The retention rates for 18 months (95% confidence interval) were 92% (81%–97%) for SEE, 94% (83%–97%) for SET, 94% (83%–97%) for ERDry, and 92% (81%–97%) for ERWet (p>0.05). Thirty-eight restorations were considered to have minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 18-month recall (13 for SEE, 13 for SET, six for ERDry, and six for ERWet; p>0.05). Fourteen restorations were detected as a minor marginal discoloration at the 18-month recall (six for SEE, six for SET, one for ERDry, and one for ERWet; p>0.05). However, all were considered clinically acceptable. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence at the time. Conclusion: The clinical performance of the Futurabond U did not depend on the bonding strategy used, and it was considered reliable after 18 months of clinical evaluation, although more marginal discrepancy was observed in the self-etch group. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|