Clinical Evaluation of a Universal Adhesive in Noncarious Cervical Lesions
Phase: NA
Conditions: Cervical Lesions
Sponsor: Indiana University



Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
1 
 
 
 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
2 
Clinical Evaluation of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions 
 
Background/Relevance: For decades, resin adhesives have been used to restore non-carious cervical 
lesions for esthetics and/or patient comfort. New “universal adhesives” claim to simplify the process of 
bonding resin composites to tooth structure while maintaining or exceeding the quality of previous adhesive 
systems. Since dentin and enamel substrates are vastly different with respect to composition and therefore 
require different bonding protocols, some have advocated a “selective etch” procedure in which the enamel 
and dentin are etched differently but may still be bonded using a similar bonding agent. The purpose of this 
study is to determine whether or not a selective etch protocol used with a universal adhesive provides 
significantly improved results in comparison to a self-etch protocol when restoring non-carious cervical 
lesions.  
Rationale: In vitro studies have shown statistically significantly superior marginal adaptation and color 
stability with a selective etch technique, but there are currently no prospective in vivo studies greater than 6 
months comparing the efficacy of selective vs. self- etch techniques in conjunction with a universal 
adhesive.  
Methods: Thirty-three patients with at least two non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) will receive one 
restoration utilizing the self-etch universal adhesive (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) with no separate 
enamel etching and another restoration utilizing the universal adhesive and a selective etch protocol in 
which enamel is etched with 37% phosphoric acid. The adhesive and Tetric composite will be provided by 
Ivoclar and manufacturer’s instructions will be followed for placement of the restorations.  
Alternate Hypothesis: Selective-etch restorations will show superior retention rates, marginal adaptation, 
and color stability after 2 years compared to self-etch restorations. 
Relevance: With so many different types of resin adhesives and numerous proposed methods, this study 
could provide evidence supporting one protocol and eliminate some of the confusion associated with resin 
bonding protocols.   

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
3 
Clinical Evaluation of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions 
Background:  
Non-carious cervical lesions  (NCCLs) have been well documented in the dental 
literature for over a century1,2. Differing opinions exist concerning the etiology of NCCLs, 
but many agree that the etiologies differ and include abrasion, erosion, attrition, and 
abfraction, a term coined in 19913,4. Although a few patients may not experience 
adverse effects from the presence of NCCLS, many patients experience sensitivity 
ranging from mild to severe. The esthetics of the dentition may also be compromised by 
the presence of NCCLs.  For decades, resin adhesives have been used to restore non-
carious cervical lesions for esthetics and/or patient comfort; restoration of these lesions 
with a bonded resin restoration has been shown to be more effective than no treatment 
or topical treatment with a desensitizing dentifrice5. Since the advent of “fourth 
generation” (also referred to as “3-bottle”) resin bonding agents in the 1990s, the 
primary focus in the development of resin adhesives has been simplifying the 
components and thus the protocol for placing resin composite restorations. New 
“universal adhesives” claim to simplify the process of bonding resin composites to tooth 
structure while maintaining or exceeding the quality of previous adhesive systems. 
Since dentin and enamel substrates are vastly different with respect to their composition 
and therefore require different bonding protocols, some have advocated a “selective 
etch” procedure in which the enamel and dentin are etched differently but may still be 
bonded using the same bonding agent. An in vitro study by Hanbusa et al (2012) 
indicated that use of a universal adhesive with selective etching of enamel with 
phosphoric acid provides better bonding efficacy than when the adhesive is used as a 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
4 
self-etch alone6. An in vivo study performed by Mena-Serrano et al (2012, 2013) has 
also shown similar results7,8, but since significant hydrolysis of the dentin-resin interface 
continues to occur after six months or even twelve months, a longer clinical trial is 
indicated which more accurately depicts longer term clinical success9. Conversely, a 3-
year study was previously conducted by Can Say, et al (2013) to compare self-etch and 
selective-etch techniques, but with a two-step bonding system instead of a one-step 
system10. 
Purpose/Specific Aims: 
The purpose of this prospective clinical trial will be to evaluate the efficacy of a newly 
formulated “universal” dental adhesive formulation in adult noncarious cervical lesions 
using self-etch and selective etch approaches; the aim is to determine whether or not 
selective etching provides significantly improved retention and/or better resistance to 
enamel margin discoloration in comparison to self-etching over a 24 month period. 
Hypothesis: 
The alternate hypothesis is that the restorations placed utilizing a selective etch method 
will yield superior retention, marginal adaptation, and less marginal discoloration than 
restorations placed with the self-etch method.  
The null hypothesis is that there will be no significant differences with respect to 
retention, marginal adaptation, or marginal discoloration when comparing restorations 
placed with selective etch and self-etch methods. 
 
Materials and Methods 
1.0 
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria 
A total of 33 patients ranging in age from 20 to 75 years of age will be recruited for this 
study. Roughly 10 patients will be in the following age groups: 20-39, 40-59, and >60.  

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
5 
The study population will be targeted to be comparable in terms of the ratio of men to 
women.  Subjects will be selected that meet the following criteria: 
 
1.1. Inclusion criteria 
1. Willing to provide written consent and authorization for participation. 
2. Be between 20 and 75 years of age at the time of recruitment 
3. Have at least two non-carious cervical lesions present in canine or premolar 
teeth; 
4. Anticipates availability for recalls (roughly 6 month, 12 month, and 24 month) 
through the two-year study period 
5. The lesions selected will be at least 1 mm in depth (measured with a perio probe) 
and contain both enamel and dentin margins.   
 
1.2. Exclusion criteria 
1. Severe medical complications (organ transplants, cancer, immunocompromised, 
long term antibiotic or steroid therapy); 
2. Active caries on study teeth; 
3. Bleeding on probing of study teeth; 
4. Generalized severe periodontitis; 
5. Patient reported symptoms (burning mouth, loss or diminished taste, saliva 
amount too little, needs liquids to eat dry foods) or clinical signs (erythematous 
tongue, chelitis, lack of pooled saliva) associated with dry mouth; 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
6 
6. Patients determined to be at a high risk of caries as determined by a Caries Risk 
Assessment 
. 
2.0 
Enrollment/Randomization 
The clinical design will use each technique (self-etch and selective etch & rinse) in each 
of thirty-three subjects. Each subject will have at least two teeth selected for inclusion in 
the study. The first tooth to be treated will be randomly assigned to one of the two 
treatment groups using a randomization table. The second tooth will be placed in the 
second group.  If a third tooth is included, a randomization table will determine which 
treatment it receives.   
 
3.0 
Study Procedures 
3.1 
Subject Recruitment 
Subjects for this investigation will be selected from patients of record at Indiana 
University School of Dentistry Clinics that meet the inclusion/exclusion criteria.  Dental 
students, dental hygiene students, and faculty will be briefed on the study criteria to 
assist in identifying potential subjects.  When a potential subject is identified who 
dentally appears to meet the criteria, the student or faculty member will either contact 
the principal investigator or student investigator to visit the patient chairside in real time 
or ask the patient if they would be willing to complete an IRB approved recruitment 
brochure to allow the investigators to contact them by phone later about the study.   
 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
7 
For those expressing interest in the project, the student investigator will complete the 
IRB approved telephone interview with the potential subject and schedule them for their 
study screening/restorative appointment, as applicable.   
 
3.2 
Screening/Restorative Visit 
3.2.1. Consenting 
The Principal Investigator or Student Investigator will complete the consenting process 
with the subjects.  Potential subjects will attend a screening visit in which they will be 
given the IRB approved informed consent and authorization for the release of health 
information for research form.  Upon reading the documents, subjects will be asked if 
they have any questions.  The purpose, procedures, risks and benefits of the study will 
be reviewed with the subject and the subject will again be asked if they have any 
questions.  If the subject feels they would like to participate, they will be asked to sign 
and date the consent and authorization forms after having his/her questions answered 
to his/her satisfaction and feeling he/she has had enough time to make a decision about 
participating.  The person who completed the consenting process with the subject will 
also sign and date the consent.  Copies of both documents will be given to the subject.  
 
3.2.2. Study Screening Procedures 
After informed consent has been obtained, the Principal Investigator or Student 
Investigator will review the subject’s on file medical record to ensure accuracy (Axium 
files), ask the inclusion/exclusion questions and perform an exam of the mouth.  If the 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
8 
subject qualifies to participate, the teeth involved in the research study will be identified 
and randomized to product as described under section 4.   
 
3.2.3. Restorative Procedures 
Prior to the placement of restorations, the following information will be recorded in the 
format of the table below: 
• Evidence of sclerosis (as determined by glossy appearance and glassy feel when 
examined with explorer; percentage will be visually estimated) 
• The lesion morphology (predominantly saucer-shaped or predominantly notch-
shaped) 
• Evidence and location of occlusal facets 
• Pre-operative sensitivity to a blast of air (from approximately 1cm for 1s12) using 
the “0-10 Numeric Pain Scale”
 
Patient #: xx 
Age: xx 
  
# 
Sclerosis 
Lesion 
Morphology 
Occlusal 
Facets 
Pre-Op Sensitivity 
Self-Etch Tooth 
  
  
  
  
  
Selective etch Tooth 
  
  
  
  
  
Tooth # (       ) 
  
  
  
  
  

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
9 
Legend: 
  
  
Sclerosis:  
0= no sclerosis 
  
1= <50% sclerotic 
  
2= >50% sclerotic 
  
  
Lesion Morphology 
S= saucer shape 
  
V= "V" shape 
  
  
Occlusal Facets 
Yes 
  
  
No 
  
  
  
Pre-Op Sensitivity 
0-10 
  
 
Intraoral digital photographs will be obtained.   Restorative procedures will be performed 
by a single provider on each tooth following standard of care procedures for a Class V 
restoration.  Any x-rays needed will be taken as standard of care and not specifically for 
research purposes.  All teeth will be cleaned with pumice in a rubber prophy cup prior to 
treatment.  The subject (patient) will read and sign the Indiana University School of 
Dentistry’s consent for treatment.  Standard of care treatment will include:  
 
• No mechanical preparation or beveling of the tooth surface will occur for either 
treatment group.   
• Local anesthetic will be offered to each subject and its use guided by the patient 
response.   
• Rubber dam isolation using a 212 clamp will be used for each restoration. 
 
3.2.4.  Placing of the Etching Materials and Restorative Materials 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
10 
At the point in the restorative procedure where the etching and restorative material 
placement occurs, the operator will follow procedures for each tooth as identified by the 
randomization schedule and as described below:   
 
a. Self-etch placement 
The universal adhesive (Adhese Universal; Ivoclar Vivadent) will be applied utilizing the 
following instructions from the manufacturer:   
Starting with enamel, thoroughly coat the tooth surfaces to be treated with 
Adhese Universal. The adhesive must be scrubbed into the tooth for at least 20 
seconds. This time must not be shortened. Disperse Adhese Universal with oil 
and moisture free compressed air until a glossy, immobile film layer results. 
Light-cure Adhese Universal for 10 seconds using a light intensity of > 
500mW/cm2 
If the lesion is greater than 2 mm in any dimension, incremental placement of Tetric 
EvoCeram composite (Ivoclar Vivadent) will occur with the first increment being placed 
against enamel. Instructions are described below: 
Apply Tetric EvoCeram in increments of max 2mm and adapt with a suitable 
instrument. Sufficient exposure to light prevents incomplete polymerization. 
Remove excess material with suitable finishers or fine diamonds after 
polymerization. Use silicone polishers as well as polishing disks and strips to 
polish the restoration to a durable high gloss.  
  Each increment will be light-cured using the intensity and duration prescribed by the 
manufacturer; the curing light will be calibrated at the beginning of each clinic session. 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
11 
Final restorations will be finished and polished with fluted composite finishing burs and 
flexible abrasive disks, respectively. 
 
b. Selective etching placement 
Total Etch (37% phosphoric acid; Ivoclar) will be placed on the enamel margin with no 
intentional placement on the dentin within the lesion.  The adhesive (Adhese Universal) 
will then be applied as instructed by the manufacturer.  Tetric EvoCeram composite will 
be placed, light-cured, finished, and polished in the same manner as for the self-etch 
group. 
 
Materials Table 
 
Adhese Universal 
Solvent: 25.0% 
Ethanol (64-17-5*) 
Water (7732-18-5*) 
Monomer mixture: 67.1% 
HEMA (868-77-9*) 
Bis-GMA (1565-94-2*) 
Decandiol dimethacrylate (6701-13-9*) Methacrylated 
phosphoric acid ester (85590-00-7*) Methacrylated 
polyacrylic acid (9003-01-04; 106-91-2*) 
Filler: 4.0% 
Fumed Silica (7631-86-9*) 
Initiators: 3.8% 
Ethyl p-Dimethylamino-benzoate (10287-53-3*) 
Campherquinone (10373-78-1*) 
Dimethylamino ethylmethacrylate (2867-47-2*) 
Stabilisers: 0.1% 
Butyl hydroxy toluene (128-37-0*) 
Hydroquinone monomethylether (150-76-5*) 
* CAS No. 
 
3.2.5 Post Procedure Images and Impressions 
Post-operative intraoral images will be obtained and impressions made using polyvinyl 
siloxane and poured in epoxy for future SEM marginal analysis.  Each restoration will 
have a baseline evaluation to document retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal 
adaptation.  

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
12 
 
3.3.      Follow Up Visits 
Recall examinations will be conducted by two IUSD faculty members (Dr. Blaine Cook, 
Dr. Jeff Platt, Dr. Oriana Capin, Dr. Michele Kirkup, Dr. Brooke Adams, Dr. Kim 
Diefenderfer) at approximately 6, 12, and 24 months from the screening/restorative visit.  
The subject’s medical history will be updated in Axium and the subject will answer 
questions to assure continued eligibility in the study.  Evaluation of sensitivity and 
modified USPHS criteria to include retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal 
adaptation will occur and recorded in the table (below).  In addition, an overall 
determination of clinically acceptable or not clinically acceptable will be made at each 
evaluation visit. Intraoral digital images and impressions will be made at each recall 
appointment. The subjects will be compensated with checks in the amounts of $25, $50, 
and $75 at 6,12, and 24-month follow-up visits, respectively. Restorations deemed to be 
not clinically acceptable within the timeframe of the study will be replaced using normal 
dental school protocol at no cost to the patient. 
 
Baseline 
# 
Retention Marginal Adapt. 
Marg. 
Discoloration 
Sensitivity 
Clinically 
Acceptable? 
Tooth # (SfE) 
  
Tooth # (SelE) 
  
Tooth # (       ) 
  
  
  
6 Month Recall 
# 
Retention Marginal Adapt. 
Marg. 
Discoloration 
Sensitivity 
Clinically 
Acceptable? 
Tooth # (SfE) 
  
Tooth # (SelE) 
  
Tooth # (       ) 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
13 
12 Month Recall 
# 
Retention Marginal Adapt. 
Marg. 
Discoloration 
Sensitivity 
Clinically 
Acceptable? 
Tooth # (SfE) 
  
Tooth # (SelE) 
  
Tooth # (       ) 
  
  
  
24 Month Recall 
# 
Retention Marginal Adapt. 
Marg. 
Discoloration 
Sensitivity 
Clinically 
Acceptable? 
Tooth # (SfE) 
  
Tooth # (SelE) 
  
Tooth # (       ) 
  
  
  
  
  
  
USPHS Criteria 
Marginal 
Discoloration 
A: There is no discoloration between the tooth and the restoration 
B: Discoloration is present without axial penetration 
C: Discoloration is present with axial penetration  
Retention 
A: Present 
B: Partial loss of restoration 
C: Absent/complete loss of restoration 
Marginal 
adaptation 
A: Excellent continuity at resin–enamel interface; explorer exhibits no 
catch or one way catch when drawn across margin 
B: Explorer exhibits a two-way catch, indicating a crevice, when drawn 
across margin 
C: Marginal crevice present; exposes base or dentin 
 
3.4 
Lost Restorations 
For any restoration that is lost during the 24-months of follow-up, an offer will be made 
to replace the restoration using normal IUSD techniques and materials at no charge. 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
14 
4.0 
Statistical Considerations 
 The two techniques will be compared for differences in sensitivity, retention, marginal 
discoloration, marginal adaptation, and clinical acceptability at each follow-up visit using 
Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests for stratified, ordered categorical outcomes. The study 
subjects are considered the ‘strata’ in this method so that the comparisons properly 
account for the use of both techniques in each subject. This method also easily extends 
to having multiple teeth receiving each technique for each patient. 
With a final sample size of 30 subjects, the study will have 80% power to detect a 35% 
difference between the two treatment methods, assuming two-sided tests of paired 
proportions and a 5% significance level. To account for attrition the study will enroll 33 
subjects. 
5.0 
Investigator Responsibilities and Regulatory Requirements 
This study will be conducted in accordance with the applicable GCPs, 21 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) 50, 56, and 312; International Conference on Harmonization 
(ICH) Good Clinical Practice published in the Federal Register:  9-May-97 (volume 62, 
number 90), pages 25691–25709. 
 
The Principal Investigator will perform or directly supervise the performance of all the 
study procedures in accordance to the highest standards of medical and clinical 
research practice.  Delegation of any study responsibility will be documented in writing. 
The Investigator and Student Investigator will follow the protocol as written and to 
ensure that all members of the assisting staff also understand and follow the protocol.  If 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
15 
changes to the protocol are needed, an IRB approved amendment will be gained prior 
to initiation of any new or changed procedures. 
5.1 
Advertising 
Advertisements including brochures and telephone interview text for subject recruitment 
will be approved by the IRB prior to study initiation.    
5.2 
Institutional Review 
The protocol, informed consent, and all other pertinent documents for this study will be 
approved by: 
Human Subjects Office 
Office of Research Administration 
Indiana University 
Lockefield Village, 3rd Floor 
980 Indiana Avenue 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46202 
 
The study will not begin until the IRB approval for the study has been granted in writing.   
5.3 
Subject Consent 
Written informed consent will be obtained from also subjects prior to their participation in 
any research procedure. This consent form will comply with all applicable regulations 
governing the protection of human subjects.  The elements of informed consent and the 
documentation of informed consent will follow specifications in 21 CFR 50.25 and 50.27 
and/or ICH GCPs chapter 4. 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
16 
Each subject will sign and date an informed consent prior to participation in the study.  A 
signed copy of the consent form will be given to the subject and the original will be 
retained by the Investigator.  Subjects may withdraw from participation in the study at 
any time.  Additionally, the Investigator may withdraw subjects from the study if it is in 
the best interest of the subjects.  The reason for all subject withdrawals from the study 
will be documented on the appropriate CRF. 
5.4 
Data Collection 
The Investigator will ensure that all source documents (i.e., study and/or medical 
records) and Case Report Forms (CRFs) are completed and maintained according to 
the study protocol. 
5.4.1. Case Report Forms 
The Investigator will supply the paper and/or electronic CRFs to be used in this study.  It 
is the responsibility of the Investigator to maintain accurate CRFs.  All hard copy CRFs 
will be filled out legibly in ink.  
 
For paper CRFs, if an entry requires correction, a single line will be placed through the 
entry so as not to obscure the original record, the corrected entry will be initialed and 
dated by the individual making the change.  There will be no whiteouts or erasures.  For 
electronic CRFs, if an entry requires correction, the change is made directly to the CRF 
in the database, the user is prompted to provide a reason for the change, and the 
correction is logged in by an electronic audit trail.  If, for any reason, the subject does 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
17 
not complete the study, an explanation will be entered on the Subject Accountability 
CRF. 
5.4.2. Source Documents 
All source documents (i.e., study and/or medical records) and CRFs will be completed 
and maintained according to the study protocol.  Any CRF used as a source document 
must be identified as such in the Investigator’s Study Notebook. 
5.5 
Study Device Dispensing, Storage, and Accounting 
The study device to be used in this study will be supplied by Ivoclar. Upon receipt of the 
study devices, the Investigator will store them in a secured area.  Records of all study 
devices will be maintained by the Investigator’s staff using a Device Dispensing Record.   
The dispensing of the study devices will be under the Investigator’s supervision, and 
only administered to those subjects who meet the entry criteria. 
5.6 
Adherence to Protocol 
The Investigator will adhere strictly to the protocol (See Section 3.7 for preparing 
protocol amendments).  The Investigator will ensure that all protocol deviations are 
documented, as they occur, in the Investigator’s Study Notebook. 
5.7 
Adverse Event Reporting 
Any adverse events spontaneously expressed by the panelists or observed by the 
Study Dentist or Investigator will be recorded giving full details including: date of onset, 
duration, severity, treatment given, final resolution, and will include the investigator’s 
assessments.  The Investigator will determine the need for further examination.  Should 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
18 
a serious adverse event occur, the Investigator will instruct the subject to report back to 
the study site at appropriate intervals until remission has occurred.  All such visits will be 
documented.   The Investigator will prepare a written statement describing the serious 
adverse event and the medical management of the adverse event.  All Adverse Events 
will be reported to the IRB in the annual report.  Serious Adverse Events that are 
directly related to the study will require IRB notification within 3 working days. A serious 
event is defined as an event that suggests a definite hazard or handicap to the subject.  
Serious events are any events resulting in death, decreased life expectancy, life-
threatening situation, permanent disability, hospitalization, drug overdose with study 
medication, or congenital anomaly. 
5.8 
Records Retention 
Study records will be stored for a minimum of 7 years after the last regulatory approval 
has been received or the discontinuation of the study.  Study records will be made 
available for inspection and copying upon the request of authorized personnel.  
 
References: 
1. Miller WD. Experiments and observations on the wasting of tooth tissue variously 
designated as erosion, abrasion, chemical abrasion, denudation, etc. Dental Cosmos 
1907;XLIX(1):1–23;XLIX(2):109–124;XLIX(3):225–47. 
2. Black GV. A work on operative dentistry. Pathology of hard tissues of the teeth. Vol. 
1. 1st ed. Chicago (IL):Medico-Dental Publishing; 1907, pp. 39–59. 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
19 
3. Grippo J, Simring M, Coleman T. Abfraction, Abrasion, Biocorrosion, and the Enigma 
of Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A 20-Year Perspective. Journal of Esthetic and 
Restorative Dentistry 2012; 24(1): 10-23. 
4. Grippo J. Abfraction: a new classification of hard tissue lesions of teeth. J Esthet Dent 
1991;3:14–8. 
5. Veitz-Keenan A, Barna J, Strober B, Matthews A, Collie D, Vena D, Curro F, Thompson 
V. Treatments for hypersensitive noncarious cervical lesions: a Practitioners 
Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network randomized clinical 
effectiveness study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2013 May;144(5):495-506. 
6. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J.  
Bonding effectiveness of a new 'multi-mode' adhesive to enamel and dentine.  J 
Dent. 2012 Jun;40(6):475-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012. Epub 2012 Feb 28. 
7. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J. A 
new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 
2013 Feb;25(1):55-69. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12005. Epub 2012 Nov 15. 
8. Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano A, De Paula E, Tay L, Reis A, Loguercio A. A New 
Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation. Oper Dent. 2013 Jun 
26. [Epub ahead of print] 
9. Hashimoto, M. (2010), A Review—Micromorphological evidence of degradation in 
resin-dentin bonds and potential preventional solutions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res., 
92B: 268–280. doi: 10.1002/jbm.b.31535 
10. Can Say E1, Ozel E, Yurdagüven H, Soyman M. Three-year clinical evaluation of 
a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching in non-

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
20 
carious cervical sclerotic lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Nov 22. [Epub ahead of 
print] 
11. Chen A, et al. Using the modified Schirmer test to measure mouth dryness: a 
preliminary study. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005 Feb;136(2):164-70 
12. Sharma D, McGuire JA, Gallob JT, Amini P. Randomised clinical efficacy trial of 
potassium oxalate mouthrinse in relieving dentinal sensitivity. J Dent. 2013 Jul;41 
Suppl 4:S40-8 
13. Fontana M1, Zunt S, Eckert GJ, Zero D. A screening test for unstimulated salivary 
flow measurement. Oper Dent. 2005 Jan-Feb;30(1):3-8. 
 
 
Budget: 
Anticipated Start Date: February 1, 2013 
 
 
Requested from Research  
Supplied “in kind” from Other 
 
 
 
Committee     
 
 
     Sources  
Category 
Description 
Amount 
Description 
Amount 
Source 
Personnel: 
 
$ 0 
Calibrators, 
Evaluators, 
Assistant 
$ 28,762 
Ivoclar 
Vivadent 
Equipment: 
 
$ 0 
Clinical 
equipment 
$ 750 
Ivoclar 
Vivadent 
Supplies: 
 
$ 0 
Adhesive, 
composite 
$ 3,000 
Ivoclar 
Vivadent 
Panelist 
Payments 
 
$ 0 
 
$ 
 
Bio-
statistics 
 
$ 0 
Statistical 
analysis 
$ 320 
IUSD 
Other 
 
$ 0 
Patient 
Incentives, 
IRB Fee 
$ 7,700 
Ivoclar 
Vivadent 
 
 
 
Cost of 
Procedures 
$ 3,201 
Ivoclar 
Vivadent 
Total Requested from 
$ 0 
Total of funds provided 
$ 43,733 

Dr. Matt Rouse 
 
 
21 
Research Committee 
from other sources: 
 
 
 
 
           Total Cost of Proposed Project:  $ 43,733