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 resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions.
This controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of a one-bottle etch- and -rinse adhesive and resin composite system ( Excite/Tetric Ceram ) compared to a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( RMGIC ) ( Vitremer/3 M ) in non-carious cervical lesions . Seventy cervical restorations ( 35 resin composite - RC- restorations and 35 RMGIC restorations ) were placed by a single operator in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation . All restorations were evaluated blindly by 2 independent examiners using the modified USPHS criteria at baseline , and after 6 , 12 and 24 months . Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher 's exact and McNemar tests . After 2 years , 59 out of 70 restorations were evaluated . As much as 78.8 % retention rate was recorded for RC restorations , while 100 % retention was obtained for RMGIC restorations . Fisher 's exact test showed significant differences ( p=0.011 ) for retention . However , there were no significant differences for marginal integrity , marginal discoloration , anatomic form and secondary caries between the RC and RMGIC restorations . The McNemar test detected significant differences for Excite/TC between baseline and the 2-year recall for retention ( p=0.02 ) , marginal integrity ( p=0.002 ) and anatomic form ( p=0.04 ) . Therefore , the one-bottle etch- and -rinse bonding system/resin composite showed an inferior clinical performance compared to the RMGIC
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 .