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 .
Eighteen-month clinical performance of a self-etching primer in unprepared class V resin restorations.
This study evaluated the clinical performance of unprepared Class V resin composites , placed using a self-etching primer and a single-bottle adhesive , over a period of 18 months . Thirty-eight pairs of restorations of Renew hybrid resin composite ( BISCO , Inc ) were placed using adhesives from the same manufacturer in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions . Based on insensitivity to air , the dentin in 76 % of these lesions was considered to be sclerotic . The restorations were placed without abrasion of tooth surfaces , except for cleaning with plain pumice . One of each pair was placed using Tyrian , a self-etching primer and the other was placed using One-Step , a single-bottle adhesive placed after acid etching . Both the etchant and self-etching primer were applied for 20 seconds . The restorations were clinical ly evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 and 18 months , using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria . For both adhesives , very low retention of 50 % to 56 % of the restorations was observed over 18 months , leading to the conclusion that tooth surfaces must receive some additional treatment prior to restoration with these adhesives . No statistically significant difference ( p=0.75 ) between the two adhesives was observed in overall performance , and dentinal sclerosis and axial depth did not appear to be important factors in the study
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 .