Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 31, Issue 8, November 2003, Pages 527-534
Journal of Dentistry

Clinical evaluation of a self-etching and a one-bottle adhesive system at two years

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(03)00107-6Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives. The clinical performances of a self-etching adhesive system, Clearfil SE Bond, and a one-bottle adhesive system, Prime&Bond NT, were evaluated in non-carious Class V restorations for a period of two years.

Methods. Ninety-eight restorations were made by one operator for 32 patients. The resin composite used to restore the teeth were Clearfil AP-X and Spectrum TPH for Clearfil SE Bond and Prime&Bond NT, respectively. Two clinicians at the baseline, 6th, 12th and 24th months evaluated the posterior composites according to the modified Ryge criteria's. For this, color match, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, recurrent caries, anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity and retention rates were considered. The changes across time and across groups were evaluated statistically.

Results. At two years, 88 restorations were reviewed in 28 patients. The retention rates for Clearfil SE Bond were 93 and 91% for Prime&Bond NT. The percentages of the retention rates of both adhesive systems were not found to be different when calculating the failure rates. Recurrent caries, anatomic form and postoperative sensitivity were scored as Alpha for all restorations. Two cases of both adhesive systems showed slight marginal discoloration problems. Three restorations of Prime&Bond NT and one of Clearfil SE Bond had marginal adaptation problems at two years. One case for each adhesive system had slight color change after the same period.

Conclusion. We can conclude that both adhesive systems tested exhibited very good clinical performance at the end of two years.

Introduction

The history of polymeric dental adhesives goes back to the early mid-fifties, with Dr Michael Buonocore's1 discovery of resin bonding to enamel as the most prominent milestone. A few years later, the concept of bonding to enamel was broadened to include dentin.

Clinical evidences have proved long lasting adhesion between enamel and resin; however, bonding to dentin was far more challenging compared to enamel. The enhanced bonding between resin and dentin was established by dentin hybridization.2 One major reason why successful bonding to dentin was so difficult to achieve is that dentin is an intrinsically wet substrate. The bonding areas are connected with the pulp by dentin tubules that are filled with fluid. Another obstacle to an intimate contact between resin and dentin is the so-called smear layer consisting of damaged collagen and apatite, which covers the dentin after cavity preparation and caries excavation.3., 4., 5., 6. This layer prevents infiltration of monomers into dentin, and even when it is removed with acid etching followed by bonding agent application, fluid flow from pulp might interfere with a stable bonding.

The new paradigm of minimal preparation was achieved by the introduction and application of caries detecting solutions, as well as the utilization of the dentin adhesives.7 Today, adhesive cavity preparation is being practiced without the traditional concern for mechanical retention form, or extension for prevention. Extensive cavity preparations have been replaced by more conservative techniques, with careful removal of the infected, permanently damaged carious tissue, and preserving sound tooth substance.7 Since minimal cavity preparation is preferred to traditional mechanical retention, the clinical and biological longevity of the final restoration is dependent on the performance of the adhesive, the bonding and the resin composite systems.

Bonding procedures to tooth structures require generally multiple-step clinical applications. Therefore, clinical success with these adhesive systems depends on technique-sensitive and material-related factors.8 In an effort to simplify the bonding procedures, several new adhesive systems rely on simultaneous etching enamel and dentin with a phosphoric acid or a self-etching primer.

Most of the current dentin adhesive systems require two-step procedures and can generally be divided into two groups. One group includes one-bottle adhesive systems with a total etching step (with phosphoric acid) and an application step (primer and adhesive combined). The other group includes self-etching primer systems with a treatment step (with a self-etching primer) followed by an adhesive resin application step.9., 10., 11., 12. Recently, in order to simplify clinical procedures and reduce technique sensitivity, several one-step, so-called ‘all-in-one’, adhesive systems have been developed.13., 14.

In recent years, the increased use of adhesive resin composites in posterior teeth has become more popular in the area of adhesive dentistry. With this trend, it is of importance for the clinicians to recognize the probable longevity and the possible modes of failure of the restorations. Long-term clinical survival of resin composite restoration is apparently dependent on the factors that cause clinical failure of the restorations, such as marginal adaptation, wear, color match, marginal discoloration, fracture and recurrent caries.5., 6., 8., 9., 15. It is recognized that laboratory studies cannot simulate all the clinical conditions to which restorations might be exposed because factors like pH cycling, masticator stresses, food abrasion, hardness of an antagonist tooth, presence of bacteria, etc. are not taken into account when doing an in vitro study. Clinical testing of dentinal adhesive systems remains the ultimate proof of effectiveness, because laboratory studies may only speculate on clinical behavior.5., 6., 8., 9., 11., 15., 16.

The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate the clinical performance of a self-etching two-step adhesive system Clearfil SE Bond and a one-bottle adhesive system Prime&Bond NT in Class V cavities for a period of two years.

Section snippets

Selection criteria

Thirty-two patients, 19 females and 13 males, with an average age of 46 (the range of age was between 26 and 60), referred to the Department of Restorative Dentistry of the Dental School in Ege University (Izmir/Turkey) and who demonstrated good oral hygiene were enrolled in this study. Written patient consents were obtained at the start of the project and the protocol was approved by the Human Ethical Research Committee of Ege University (Izmir/Turkey). A total of 98 restorations were placed

Results

At the two-year follow-up examination, 88 of the 98 restorations were evaluated (90% recall rate) in 28 patients. Four patients were not able to reach for various times of the control period. Those patients were considered to have missing restorations and were scored ‘C’ (Charlie) for the retention rate. The Cvar/Ryge scores for the evaluated restorations were listed in Table 4. Using the ADA guidelines formula,19 we calculated the two-year retention rates to be 93% for the self-etching group

Discussion

At the end of two years, the recall rate was 90%. The clinical evaluation of the 88 available restorations revealed over 90% retention rate for both adhesive system. According to the ‘revised acceptance program guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesive materials’ of the American Dental Association Council on Dental Materials,19 success criteria's are defined by the maximum number of restorations lost and microleakage failures at baseline, 6 and 18 months. A dentin and enamel adhesive material

Conclusion

Within the limits of this study, we can conclude that for a period of two years, the clinical performance of the self-etching and the one-bottle adhesive systems were not different. The utilization of both systems to restore Class V cavities is favorable for two years.

Acknowledgements

The author would thank the companies of Kuraray and Dentsply/De Trey for their generous material support.

References (42)

  • N. Nakabayashi et al.

    The promoter of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates

    Journal of Biomedical Material Research

    (1982)
  • B. Haller

    Recent developments in dentin bonding

    American Journal of Dentistry

    (2000)
  • T. Fusayama

    New concepts in operative dentistry

    (1980)
  • M. Ferrari et al.

    Bonding mechanism of three ‘one-bottle’ systems to conditioned and unconditioned enamel and dentin

    American Journal of Dentistry

    (1997)
  • E.J. Swift et al.

    Shear bond strengths of one-bottle dentin adhesives using multiple applications

    Operative Dentistry

    (1997)
  • R. Frankenberger et al.

    Technique sensitivity of dentin bonding: effect of application mistakes on bond strength and marginal adaptation

    Operative Dentistry

    (2000)
  • M. Miyazaki et al.

    Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems

    American Journal of Dentistry

    (2000)
  • S. Bouillaguets et al.

    Bond strength of composite to dentine using conventional, one-step, and self-etching adhesive systems

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2001)
  • B. Van Meerbeek et al.

    Clinical status of ten dentin adhesive systems

    Journal of Dental Research

    (1994)
  • E.S. Duke

    Clinical studies of adhesive systems

    Operative Dentistry

    (1992)
  • G. Ryge et al.

    Criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials

    (1971)
  • Cited by (93)

    • Do HEMA-free adhesive systems have better clinical performance than HEMA-containing systems in noncarious cervical lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis

      2018, Journal of Dentistry
      Citation Excerpt :

      Within the 22 studies, 9 full-text studies [5,16,18,19,26,28–30,33] were classified to be of “unclear risk of bias” in the key domains of the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Thirteen studies [1,13–15,17,20,27,31–37] were considered to be of “low risk of bias”. The meta-analysis was conducted with the data available in the “low and unclear risk of bias” studies included in this systematic review.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text