Skip to content

Scotchbond Universal Plus Compared to Scotchbond Universal With Filtek Universal Restorative to Restore Class V NCCLs

Clinical Performance of a New Dental Adhesive, 3M™ Scotchbond™ Universal Plus Adhesive, Compared to 3M™ Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive When Used With 3M™ Filtek™ Universal Restorative to Restore Class V Non-carious Cervical Lesions

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05361746
Acronym
SBU+ClassV
Enrollment
38
Registered
2022-05-05
Start date
2022-08-18
Completion date
2025-09-11
Last updated
2026-04-24

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Class V Non-carious Cervical Dental Lesions

Keywords

composite resins, dental adhesives, noncarious lesions, abfraction lesions, bonding, dental, clinical study, Scotchbond Universal plus, Scotchbond Universal, Filtek, dental materials

Brief summary

This is a prospective, controlled, within-subject, randomized, single-center study comparing Scotchbond Universal Plus (SBU+) and Scotchbond Universal (SBU) adhesives when used with Filtek restorative. The study will enroll Subjects scheduled to undergo Class-V non-carious cervical lesion (NCCL) restorations.

Detailed description

This is a prospective, controlled, within-subject, randomized, single-center study that will enroll Subjects scheduled to undergo Class-V NCCL restorations on 2 or 4 teeth treated in pairs according to lesion depth. Enough subjects will be enrolled from a single site located in New Orleans, Louisiana, USA to perform a minimum of 110 restorations (estimated 38 subjects). Each study tooth will be restored using only one type of adhesive, either SBU+ or SBU, and Filtek restorative following manufacturer's directions using the "Total Etch/Etch and Rinse Procedure". Any teeth needing treatment that are not included in the study will be treated by the dentist using the standard of care. Subjects will be seen during screening (≤21 days before the restoration procedure), on the day of the restoration procedure, 7 days (± 3 days) after restoration (remote visit for subject self-assessment of baseline hypersensitivity), and follow-up visits at 6 months (± 14 days), 1 year (± 30 days), and 2 years (± 45 days) after restorations. Study teeth will be assessed for selected endpoints based partly on FDI (Fédération Dentaire Internationale) World Dental Federation criteria. Subjects may participate in additional unscheduled visits as required during the study if evaluation of any study tooth is required outside of the scheduled study visits. The entire duration of the study is expected to last approximately 3 years, with individual Subject participation expected to last up to 2 years (± 45 days). To help minimize or avoid bias in the study, randomization of study teeth will occur after teeth preparation but before the initial application of any adhesive. Assessments will be performed by 2 dental examiners that are independent of the dentist that placed the restorations and are blinded to the treatment arms. All examiners will be trained and calibrated for the scoring criteria before any Subject assessment occurs, and examiners will be retrained and recalibrated if any new evaluator is added to the list of assessors. After the second examiner has completed their assessments, the examiners will compare their evaluations and a consensus will be reached for each of the scoring criteria at each visit before the Subject leaves the visit. The consensus assessments will be entered into the Case Report Form (CRF).

Interventions

DEVICEScotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive

Eligible teeth with Class-V NCCLs randomized to the SBU+ treatment group underwent restoration(s) using Scotchbond Universal Plus (SBU+) Adhesive using total-etch mode and Filtek Universal Restorative material.

DEVICEScotchbond Universal Adhesive

Eligible teeth with Class-V NCCLs randomized to the SBU Control group underwent restoration(s) using Scotchbond Universal Plus (SBU) Adhesive using total-etch mode and Filtek Universal Restorative material.

Sponsors

Solventum US LLC
Lead SponsorINDUSTRY

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Masking description

All assessments were performed by two dental examiners that were independent of the dentist that placed the restorations and were blinded to the treatment arms.

Intervention model description

Each subject had either two restorations (two teeth) or four restorations (four teeth) performed at the beginning of the study, with each tooth restoration using only one type of adhesive. Study teeth were paired according to lesion depth and randomized to treatment in a 1:1 ratio with at least half of the teeth (ie, 1 tooth for Subjects with 2 eligible teeth or 2 teeth for Subjects with 4 eligible teeth) randomized to undergo restoration(s) using Scotchbond Universal Plus Adhesive (SBU+ Treatment group) and the other half of the teeth undergoing restoration(s) using Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SBU Control group).

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

Subjects may be included that meet the following criteria: 1. Subject is at least 18 years of age at the time of consent 2. Subject is able to provide their own informed consent 3. Subject has a minimum of two teeth that: * have non-carious Class V lesions that are at least 1.5 mm deep * are not devitalized * have not undergone root canal treatment 4. Subject has an Approximal Plaque Index score ≤ 40% as assessed via explorer and without the use of plaque-disclosing agents 5. Subject is able and willing to return for all scheduled study visits 6. Subject meets the Level-I or Level-II classification criteria of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System For Dental Patient Care

Exclusion criteria

Subjects may not be included that meet any of the following criteria: 1. Subject has any of the following: * rampant caries * chronic periodontitis * salivary gland dysfunction 2. Subject is unable, for any reason, to tolerate the procedure time required to place the restorations 3. Subject has unacceptable oral hygiene (eg, chronic moderate to heavy plaque accumulation along the gumline) 4. Subject has known sensitivity to the study product components (ie, acrylate) 5. Subject is planned to be enrolled in another investigational trial that requires additional interventions at any time during the study

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Retention of Restorative Material24 months post-restorationThe percentage of restorations with partial or complete loss of the restorative materials.
Marginal Adaptation24 months post-restorationMarginal adaptation of restorations graded on a scale of 1-5 with a score of 1 being Excellent/very good and a score of 5 being Poor. Grading scale is based on modified FDI (Fédération Dentaire Internationale) World Dental Federation criteria. Scoring categories for marginal adaptation: 1. Excellent/very good: No clinically detectable gap. 2. Good: Marginal integrity deviates from the ideal but could be upgraded to ideal by polishing. 3. Sufficient/Satisfactory: Leakage/discoloration is present but limited to the marginal area. 4. Unsatisfactory: Localized gap larger than 250 µm, may result in exposure of dentine or base. 5. Poor: Generalized gap larger than 250 µm or the restoration is loose but in situ, re-placement necessary.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Retention of Restorative Material6 months post-restorationThe percentage of restorations with partial or complete loss of the restoration material.
Marginal Adaptation6 months post restorationMarginal adaptation of restorations graded on a scale of 1-5 with a score of 1 being Excellent/very good and a score of 5 being Poor. Grading scale is based on modified FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Scoring categories for marginal adaptation: 1. Excellent/very good: No clinically detectable gap. 2. Good: Marginal integrity deviates from the ideal but could be upgraded to ideal by polishing. 3. Sufficient/Satisfactory: Leakage/discoloration is present but limited to the marginal area. 4. Unsatisfactory: Localized gap larger than 250 µm, may result in exposure of dentine or base. 5. Poor: Generalized gap larger than 250 µm or the restoration is loose but in situ, re-placement necessary.
Fracture of Restorative Material6 months post-restorationFractures on study teeth graded on a 0-4 grading scale with a score of 1 being Excellent/very good and a score of 4 being Unsatisfactory. Grading scale is based on modified FDI World Dental Federation criteria. Scoring categories for the fracture of restorative material are defined as follows: 1. Excellent/very good: No fractures/cracks 2. Good: Small hairline cracks 3. Sufficient/Satisfactory: Two or more or larger hairline cracks and/or material chip fracture not affecting the marginal integrity or approximal contact 4. Unsatisfactory: Material chip fractures which damage marginal quality or approximal contacts
Secondary Caries6 months post-restorationSecondary caries in study teeth scored on scale 1-5. 1. Excellent/Very Good: No secondary or primary caries 2. Good: Small and localized areas of demineralization 3. Sufficient/Satisfactory: Larger areas of demineralization 4. Unsatisfactory: Caries with cavitation and suspected undermining caries 5. Poor: Deep caries or exposed dentin not accessible for repair of restoration.

Countries

United States

Contacts

PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATORAlika Yu, DDS

Louisiana State University HSC Health, School of Dentistry

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The patient population was selected from current patients under clinical treatment at Louisiana State University (LSU), School of Dentistry. Patients were between the ages of 18 and 70 years old at time of consent, of either sex, and of any ethnic background. Eligible patients needed to have at least two teeth with Class V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) at least 1.5 mm deep, in vital teeth that had not undergone root canal treatment.

Pre-assignment details

Subjects were required to meet all inclusion and none of the exclusion criteria to be eligible. A total of 38 subjects were screened and of those, 32 subjects were treated. Two or four Class V restorations were placed per patient, randomized in a 1:1 ratio with half of the teeth (i.e., 1 tooth for Subjects with 2 eligible teeth, or 2 teeth for Subjects with 4 eligible teeth) randomized to the SBU+ Adhesive Treatment group and the other half to the SBU Adhesive Control group.

Baseline characteristics

Characteristic
Age, Continuous60 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 12
Age, Customized
<=18 years
0 years
Age, Customized
>=65 years
14 years
Age, Customized
Between 18 - 65 years
17 years
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino
1 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity: Not Hispanic or Latino
11 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Ethnicity: Unknown or Not Reported
19 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Asian
4 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: Black or African American
6 participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Race: White
21 participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
31 participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
18 participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
13 participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 320 / 32
other
Total, other adverse events
2 / 322 / 32
serious
Total, serious adverse events
2 / 322 / 32

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Apr 25, 2026