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 .
Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations.
While a one-year report had been previously published , this study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical performance and appearance of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite over two years . Thirty-seven pairs of restorations of FujI II LC and Z 250/Single Bond were placed in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions without tooth preparation . Restorations were clinical ly evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 , 18 and 24 months using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria . No statistically significant difference ( p = 0.13 ) was observed in the overall performance of the material s. Retention was 96 % for the resin-modified glass ionomer and 81 % for the resin composite , with no additional restorations of either material lost after one year . As previously reported , retention of the Z 250 restorations at six months was below the minimum specified in the ADA Acceptance Program for Dentin and Enamel Adhesives . The resin composite restorations generally had a better appearance , with a 100 % alpha rating in color match , versus 85 % for the resin-modified glass ionomer
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 .