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 .
Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis.
This r and omized clinical trial compared the performance of an all-in-one adhesive ( iBond ) applied in sclerotic and non-sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions with that of a three-step etch-prime-bond adhesive ( Gluma Solid Bond , SB ) .  One-hundred and five lesions were r and omly assigned to four groups according to adhesive , sclerosis scale and technique : 1 ) SB applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=26 ) ; 2 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 1 and 2 ( n=28 ) ; 3 ) iBond applied to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=25 ) and 4 ) iBond applied with prior acid-etching to lesions with sclerosis scale 3 and 4 ( n=26 ) . A microfilled composite ( Durafill VS ) was used as the restorative material . The restorations were evaluated for retention , color match , marginal adaptation , anatomic form , cavosurface margin discoloration , secondary caries , pre- and post-operative sensitivity , surface texture and fracture at insertion ( baseline ) , 6 , 18 months and at 3 years using modified USPHS evaluation criteria ( Alfa = excellent ; Bravo= clinical ly acceptable ; Charlie= clinical ly unacceptable ) . There was a high percentage of Bravo scores for marginal adaptation ( 4%-32 % ) and marginal discoloration ( 18%-60 % ) in Groups 2 , 3 and 4 , but all groups had < 5 % Charlie scores at 6 months and < 10 % Charlie scores at 18 months for retention and marginal discoloration , respectively . However , it should be noted that 13 % of the restorations in Group 4 were not retained at three years
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 .