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 ) .
Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.
The use of adhesive material s to restore non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCL ) has become the st and ard practice . Until recently , the most reliable material for restoring NCCL is glass ionomer cement , but the esthetics can be problematic . This study compared the retention of a self-etching adhesive , Clearfil SE Bond , with Clearfil ST resin composite ( SE ) , with the phosphoric acid-etch single bottle adhesive Single Bond with A110 resin composite ( SB ) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement , Fuji II LC , ( FJ ) .  Ninety-two restorations in 20 patients ( mean age 61 years ) were placed . The teeth were restored r and omly and manufacturers ' instructions were followed . Patients were recalled at 6 months , 1 , 2 and 3 years and the restorations were evaluated for marginal staining . The restorations were photographed at baseline and at recall periods . At one year , 80 restorations were available for evaluation ; at 2 years , 65 restorations were evaluated and at 3 years , 55 restorations were evaluated . The cumulative retention rates at 1 year , 2 years and 3 years , respectively , were SE : 97 % , 93 % , 90 % ; SB : 86 % , 77 % , 77 % ; FJ : 100 % , 100 % , 97 % . At 3 years , RM-GIC performed the best , followed by Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil ST . Single Bond/A110 's performance was significantly less than the other 2 material s ( p = 0.012 )
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 ) .