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 .
A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives.
BACKGROUND The authors conducted an in vivo investigation to compare the clinical performance of two commercial one-bottle adhesives and a two-bottle adhesive for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) . METHOD The patient pool consisted of 57 patients and 171 teeth ( three teeth per patient ) , with one NCCL per tooth . Each patient received three resin-based composite restorations , each with a different adhesive : one tooth with a two-bottle , water-based adhesive as the control ; another tooth with a one-bottle , ethanol-based adhesive ; and a third tooth with a one-bottle , solvent-free adhesive . The authors assessed restorations in terms of retention , marginal integrity , margin discoloration and air sensitivity at baseline , six months , one year , two years and three years after initial placement . RESULTS The retention rates at 36 months were 88 percent for the first adhesive , 81 percent for the second adhesive and 90 percent for the third adhesive . No statistically significant differences in retention rates could be shown , with 86 percent of restorations retained overall . Measures of marginal integrity , marginal discoloration and sensitivity also had no statistically significant differences between the three adhesives ( P > .05 ) . CONCLUSIONS All three adhesives performed with acceptable outcomes after a 36-month period , with small differences between the one- and two-bottle systems and between the various solvents . Retention rate was moderately high and air sensitivity was markedly reduced ; however , superficial marginal discoloration and marginal degradation was notable . Certain lesion , tooth and patient characteristics may predispose restorations to retention failure . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The type of solvent may not be a major factor in retention of Class V restorations in NCCLs . Both single-bottle adhesives and conventional two-bottle adhesives performed acceptably
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 .