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 ) .
5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions.
AIM To comparatively assess the 5-year clinical performance of a 1-bottle adhesive and resin composite system with a resin-modified glass ionomer restorative in non-carious cervical lesions . METHOD AND MATERIAL S One operator placed 70 restorations ( 35 resin modified glass ionomer restorations and 35 resin composite restorations ) in 30 patients under rubber dam isolation without mechanical preparation .  The restorations were directly assessed by 2 independent examiners , using modified USPHS criteria at baseline and 6 , 12 , 24 and 60 months . RESULTS Twenty-two patients were available for recall after 5 years ( 73.3 % recall rate ) and 55 out of 70 restorations were evaluated . Excellent agreement was registered for all criteria between examiners ( kappa > or = 0.85 ) . Sixteen composite restorations were dislodged ( 51.5 % retention ) and 1 ionomer restoration was lost ( 96.4 % retention ) . The McNemar test detected significant differences in resin composite restorations between baseline and 5-year recall for marginal integrity ( p<0.001 ) and retention ( p=0.004 ) . For resin modified glass ionomer restorations , no significant differences were identified for all criteria ( p>0.05 ) . When comparing both material s , the Fisher exact test pointed out significant differences in retention ( p=0.002 ) after 5 years of clinical service . CONCLUSIONS After 5 years of evaluation , the clinical performance of resin modified glass ionomer restorations was superior to resin composite restorations
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 ) .