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 dentin bonding agents.
BACKGROUND A new restorative called a " giomer composite " has been introduced . The authors conducted a study to determine retention , anatomical form , caries , staining , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , surface roughness and sensitivity of giomer  compared with those of a microfilled composite . METHODS The authors placed 40 sets of restorations r and omly in canines and premolars in vivo . They used a giomer composite and a microfilled composite in erosion/abrasion/abfraction Class V lesions that were not altered with rotary instruments . They placed the restorations according to manufacturer 's recommendations , and two calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations independently using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria at baseline and at six , 18 and 36 months . The lesions receiving the restorations did not differ from each other in the amount of circumferential enamel present , the percentage of the surface area of dentin or lesion type . RESULTS There were no differences in the restorations at baseline , an evaluation made two weeks after placement . At 36 months , the giomer and microfilled composite restorations were not significantly different from one another in any of the eight criteria evaluated . The percentage agreement between examiners was at least 83 percent for each criterion in each evaluation period . CONCLUSIONS Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study meet the clinical portion of the Acceptance Program Guidelines for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives Material s established by the American Dental Association . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S Both the giomer and the microfilled composite used in this study can be used with confidence in Class V lesions
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 .