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 24-month randomized clinical trial of a two- and three-step etch-and-rinse technique.
PURPOSE This 24-month r and omized paired tooth clinical study evaluated the performance of All Bond 3 used in the simplified ( 2-step ) and full ( 3-step ) versions . METHODS 33 patients , with at least two similar sized non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study . A total of 66 restorations  were placed , half using the 2-step All Bond 3 ( AB3 - 2 ) and the other half using 3-step All Bond 3 ( AB3 - 3 ) . The restorations were placed incrementally using the composite resin Aelite . The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 , 12 and 24 months following the modified USPHS criteria . Statistical differences between the adhesive were tested using with McNemar 's test and clinical performance over time for each material with the Fisher 's exact test ( alpha = 0.05 ) . RESULTS After 24 months , six AB3 - 2 and four AB3 - 3 were rated as bravo for marginal discoloration but did not differ from each other significantly ( P > 0.05 ) . The retention rates at 24 months of AB3 - 2 and AB3 - 3 were 90.9 % and 97.0 % , respectively ( P > 0.05 )
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 .