There is not enough evidence to support one adhesive or bonding strategy over another for treatment of NCCLs .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Studies with low overall risk of bias demonstrated good clinical performance for adhesives with all four bonding strategies .
However , included studies showed wide variation between adhesives of the same category
OBJECTIVES To establish whether simplified adhesives ( self-etch ) are as clinical ly effective as conventional adhesives ( etch- and -rinse ) with multiple application steps for treatment of non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) .
NULL HYPOTHESIS there is no difference in the clinical effectiveness of the four different bonding strategies : Three-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step self-etch ; One-step self-etch for treatment of NCCLs .
Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions.
OBJECTIVES This r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of S3 Bond ( S3 ) and G-Bond ( GB ) in 108 non-carious cervical lesions . METHODS Twenty-three patients , 12 male and 11 female ( mean age : 61.8 years , range : 30 - 79 years ) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry , participated in the study . Each patient received both material s r and omly . All restorations ( 53 restorations for S3 and 55 restorations for GB ) were placed by one dentist . The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline , 6 months , 1 and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran Q test and Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS One restoration of each material was lost during 2 years . The only minor clinical problem was the integrity of the enamel margin . Slight marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations of both S3 and GB . There was no significant difference in the clinical performance between S3 and GB for each variable . CONCLUSIONS Under the protocol used in this study , S3 and GB have demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 2 years
There is not enough evidence to support one adhesive or bonding strategy over another for treatment of NCCLs .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Studies with low overall risk of bias demonstrated good clinical performance for adhesives with all four bonding strategies .
However , included studies showed wide variation between adhesives of the same category
OBJECTIVES To establish whether simplified adhesives ( self-etch ) are as clinical ly effective as conventional adhesives ( etch- and -rinse ) with multiple application steps for treatment of non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) .
NULL HYPOTHESIS there is no difference in the clinical effectiveness of the four different bonding strategies : Three-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step self-etch ; One-step self-etch for treatment of NCCLs .