Conclusion The current best evidence indicates that a glass ionomer cement has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to either a three-step etch- and -rinse or a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system ; a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system .
No significant difference could be observed in the risk of loss of a tooth-colored NCCL restoration between a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system and either a two-step self-etch or a one-step self-etch adhesive system
Objectives The aim of this review was to assess the effect of different adhesive systems and tooth preparation on the retention of tooth-colored restorative material s  placed in non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) .
Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions.
PURPOSE The aim of this double-blind r and omized study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( Vitremer , 3 M ) and a polyacid-modified resin ( Dyract , Dentsply DeTrey ) in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Twelve patients , having at least one pair of equal-sized noncarious cervical lesions under occlusion and a mean age of 40 years ( range 19 to 63 years ; median 41 ) , were enrolled in this study . A total of 32 restorations ( 16 with each material ) were placed according to the manufacturers ' instructions by two calibrated operators . Two other independent examiners evaluated the restorations at baseline and after 5 years according to the USPHS criteria . The assessment criteria were : retention , anatomical form , marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration , color match , surface texture , and secondary caries . Statistical analysis was conducted using Fisher 's exact test ( alpha = 0.05 ) . RESULTS No secondary caries was detected with either material . The retention rate for Vitremer ( 93 % ) and for Dyract ( 78.5 % ) did not differ significantly ( p > 0.05 ) . Regarding anatomical form , only two restorations of each material were recorded as bravo . In terms of marginal adaptation , 38.5 % of Dyract restorations were rated alpha and 61.5 % bravo , while 84.6 % of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha and only 15.4 % bravo ( p < 0.05 ) . For marginal discoloration , 18.2 % of Dyract restorations and 84.6 % of Vitremer restorations were rated alpha , with the remaining rated bravo . 86 % of Vitremer restorations were rated as bravo and 23 % alpha for both surface texture and color match . All Dyract restorations were classified as alpha regarding surface texture , and only two Dyract restorations ( 18.2 % ) were classified as bravo in the color match item . CONCLUSION The marginal adaptation of the RMGIC ( Vitremer ) was significantly better , the marginal discoloration lower , and the retention rate higher ( though not significantly ) than that of the PMRC ( Dyract ) after 5 years in situ . Dyract performed better in terms of surface texture and color match in noncarious Class V restorations after 5 years
Conclusion The current best evidence indicates that a glass ionomer cement has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to either a three-step etch- and -rinse or a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system ; a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system .
No significant difference could be observed in the risk of loss of a tooth-colored NCCL restoration between a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive system and either a two-step self-etch or a one-step self-etch adhesive system
Objectives The aim of this review was to assess the effect of different adhesive systems and tooth preparation on the retention of tooth-colored restorative material s  placed in non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) .