Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial. Issue 11 (November 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: de Paris Matos, Thalita; Perdigão, Jorge; de Paula, Eloisa; Coppla, Fabiana; Hass, Viviane; Scheffer, Rafael F.; Reis, Alessandra; Loguercio, Alessandro D.
• Is Part Of: Dental materials. Volume 36:Issue 11(2020)
• Page Start: 1474
• Page End: 1485
• Publication Date: 2020-11
• Subjects: Universal adhesives -- Randomized clinical trial -- Etch-and-rinse -- Self-etch -- Selective enamel etching; Dentistry -- Periodicals; Dental materials -- Periodicals; 617.695
• DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0109-5641

Abstract

Highlights: This is the first long-term clinical study evaluating the first commercial universal adhesive. The etch-and-rinse (moist or dry) strategy showed better clinical behavior than the self-etch strategy. For practicing dentists, it is recommended to etch enamel when using a universal adhesive. FDI and USPHS criteria showed similar results after 5 years. Abstract: Objective: To evaluate the five-year clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU; 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria. Methods: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: SU-ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; SU-ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; SU-Set: selective enamel etching; and SU-SE: self-etch. A nanofilled composite resin was placed incrementally. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 5 years using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The survival rates (retention/fractures) were calculated with the Kaplan-Meier and the log-rank test. For the secondary outcomes, Friedman repeated measures analysis of variance by rank was applied ( α = 0.05). Results: After 5 years the recall rate was 86%. The retention/fracture rates were 93% for Er m and ER d, 88.4% for SE et and 81.4% for SE. A significant difference was observed for SE vs. ER d and SE vs. ER m (p = 0.01). Also, marginal discoloration and adaptation showed significant differences with ER m and ERd resulting in fewer marginal discrepancies than SE (p < 0.05). Significance: After 5 years, the clinical behavior of the universal adhesive in the etch-and-rinse strategy was better when compared to the self-etch strategy. The use of selective enamel etching is highly recommended for the self-etch strategy. The FDI and USPHS evaluation criteria showed similar results after 5 years.