Non-Carious Cervical Lesions
Conditions
Keywords
Non-Carious Cervical Lesions, Universal adhesive
Brief summary
The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performance of a universal adhesive with different adhesive strategies in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over a 36-month period.
Detailed description
One hundred sixty-five NCCLs in 35 patients (13 female, 22 male) with at least 3 lesions were included in this study. Three groups were formed according to adhesive strategies used (n=55): selective-etch mode; etch-and-rinse mode (ER); or self-etch (SE) mode of a universal adhesive, Single Bond Universal. The same nanofilled resin composite, Filtek Ultimate was used for all restorations by a single operator. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated examiners at baseline and at 6-, 12-, 18-, 24- and 36- months in accordance with the modified USPHS criteria. The Chi-square test was used for intergroup, the Cochran Q test was used for intragroup comparison.
Interventions
DEVICEScotchbond Universal Adhesive (3M ESPE)
Adhesive system
Sponsors
Hacettepe University
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 81 Years
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* over 18 years old * good oral hygiene * available for recall * at least 20 teeth under occlusion * the presence of at least three non-carious cervical lesions
Exclusion criteria
* poor oral hygiene * bruxism habits * severe or chronic periodontitis * If the teeth selected for study, were nonvital, or had any restorations on other surfaces were not included.
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Marginal adaptation | From baseline to 36 month | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal adaptation. Marginal adaptation was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed . Scores; Alfa: Closely adapted, no visible crevice. Bravo: Visible crevice, explorer will penetrate. Charlie: Crevice in which dentin is exposed |
| Marginal staining | From baseline to 36 month | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding marginal staining. Marginal staining was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Visual inspection with a mirror was performed . Scores: Alfa: No discoloration. Bravo: Discoloration without. Charlie: Discoloration with penetration in pulpal direction |
| Retention | From baseline to 36 month | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: No loss of restorative material. Charlie: Any loss of restorative material |
| Postoperative sensitivity | From baseline to 36 month | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: Not present. Bravo: sensitive but diminishing in intensity. Charlie:constant sensitivity, not diminishing in intensity |
| Seconder caries | From baseline to 36 month | Observers evaluated the restorations was performed using the modified United State Public Health Service criteria regarding retention rate. Retention rate was evaluated by 2 independent clinicians. Scores: Alfa: No caries present. Charlie: Caries present |
Countries
Turkey (Türkiye)
Outcome results
None listed