Clinical evaluation of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system in class V noncarious composite restorations
Balbinot CE, Antoniazzi RP, Parode JT, Farias Ld, Zamboni C, Skupien JA.
Clinical evaluation of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive
system in class V noncarious composite restorations. Eur J Gen Dent
[serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Jan 7];9:23-7. Available from: http://www.ejgd.org/text.asp?2020/9/1/23/274666
Context: Adhesive restorations in cervical, noncarious, and nonretentive cavities are used as a clinical model for the evaluation of adhesive systems.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate restorations made by dental students of the last year of dentistry made with a self-etching and etching-and-rinse adhesive system.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-two noncarious cervical lesions Class V cavities were restored after randomly be allocated into two adhesive groups: self-etch (AdheSe self-etch) or an etch-and-rinse (Tetric N-Bond). Operators were two well-trained students of the last year of dental school and the restorations were evaluated using a single examiner, specialist in restorative dentistry, blinded and calibrated using the criteria according to the modified United States Public Health Service. Descriptive analysis, Chi-square test to evaluate associations, and survival analysis by the Kaplan–Meier were used for statistical analysis.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the evaluation of adhesive systems in Class V restorations (P = 0.160). There was also no statistically difference (P = 0.751) in the assessment of the existence of occlusal interference on lateral movement and loss of restorations. The survival rate calculated for the total restorations was 89%. The survival rate of the restorations when used etch-and-rinse adhesive systems was 92.7% while with the self-etching of 85.4%. Nine restorations were classified as lost, and one restoration cannot be assessed due to the patient having it replaced before evaluation, and the other eight restorations were lost getting the score Charlie for retention.
Conclusions: Class V dental restorations had a satisfactory survival rate irrespective of the adhesive system.
Context: Adhesive restorations in cervical, noncarious, and nonretentive cavities are used as a clinical model for the evaluation of adhesive systems.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate restorations made by dental students of the last year of dentistry made with a self-etching and etching-and-rinse adhesive system.
Materials and Methods: Eighty-two noncarious cervical lesions Class V cavities were restored after randomly be allocated into two adhesive groups: self-etch (AdheSe self-etch) or an etch-and-rinse (Tetric N-Bond). Operators were two well-trained students of the last year of dental school and the restorations were evaluated using a single examiner, specialist in restorative dentistry, blinded and calibrated using the criteria according to the modified United States Public Health Service. Descriptive analysis, Chi-square test to evaluate associations, and survival analysis by the Kaplan–Meier were used for statistical analysis.
Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the evaluation of adhesive systems in Class V restorations (P = 0.160). There was also no statistically difference (P = 0.751) in the assessment of the existence of occlusal interference on lateral movement and loss of restorations. The survival rate calculated for the total restorations was 89%. The survival rate of the restorations when used etch-and-rinse adhesive systems was 92.7% while with the self-etching of 85.4%. Nine restorations were classified as lost, and one restoration cannot be assessed due to the patient having it replaced before evaluation, and the other eight restorations were lost getting the score Charlie for retention.
Conclusions: Class V dental restorations had a satisfactory survival rate irrespective of the adhesive system.
Comments