Clinical evaluation of single bond universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month retrospective study.

IF 3.1 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Hatice Tepe, Ozge Celiksoz, Batu Can Yaman
{"title":"Clinical evaluation of single bond universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month retrospective study.","authors":"Hatice Tepe, Ozge Celiksoz, Batu Can Yaman","doi":"10.1007/s00784-024-06126-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Single Bond Universal Adhesive (SBU; 3M ESPE, Germany) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using different modes of adhesion according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome was the retention loss of the restorations, while the secondary outcomes included marginal staining, marginal adaptation, post-operative sensitivity and tooth vitality, recurrence of caries erosion and abfraction, and tooth integrity, all evaluated according to the FDI criteria.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this study, the SBU Adhesive was applied to 246 NCCLs of 25 patients using different modes of adhesion: Self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etching (SLE), and etch-and-rinse (ER). All lesions were restored with the same nanohybrid resin composite. The restorations were evaluated at the 1st, the 6th, 12th, 18th, and 36th month using the FDI criteria. The differences between SE, SLE, and ER groups were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests where a value of p < 0.05 was accepted as a criterion for statistical significance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After 36-month the recall rate was 96%. The retention loss rates were 29.33% for SE, 16.66% for SLE, and 3.89% for ER modes. Interactions between time periods and adhesive modes were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all FDI criteria. ER mode performed significantly better than SE mode for marginal staining, marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, erosion and abfraction criteria after the 36th month (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between SE and SLE mode (p > 0.05), nor between SLE and ER mode (p > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>After the 36-month evaluation of all adhesive modes used in the study, restorations performed with the ER adhesion mode were clinically good (2), while those performed with the SE adhesion mode and SLE adhesion mode were clinically satisfactory (3) according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome, retention loss, was significantly lower in the ER mode compared to SE and SLE modes. For secondary outcomes, the ER mode showed better performance in marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and the recurrence of caries, erosion, and abfraction highlighting its clinical advantages for mid-term success in non-carious cervical lesions.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>Restorations performed with the SE adhesion mode of universal adhesives exhibit clinically acceptable behavior after 36 months of evaluation, although with less success than those performed with the ER adhesion mode.</p><p><strong>Clinical trial registration: </strong>Clinical trials number- NCT06227715, Clinical trials link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06227715.</p>","PeriodicalId":10461,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Oral Investigations","volume":"29 1","pages":"33"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Oral Investigations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-024-06126-y","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Single Bond Universal Adhesive (SBU; 3M ESPE, Germany) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using different modes of adhesion according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome was the retention loss of the restorations, while the secondary outcomes included marginal staining, marginal adaptation, post-operative sensitivity and tooth vitality, recurrence of caries erosion and abfraction, and tooth integrity, all evaluated according to the FDI criteria.

Materials and methods: In this study, the SBU Adhesive was applied to 246 NCCLs of 25 patients using different modes of adhesion: Self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etching (SLE), and etch-and-rinse (ER). All lesions were restored with the same nanohybrid resin composite. The restorations were evaluated at the 1st, the 6th, 12th, 18th, and 36th month using the FDI criteria. The differences between SE, SLE, and ER groups were tested using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests where a value of p < 0.05 was accepted as a criterion for statistical significance.

Results: After 36-month the recall rate was 96%. The retention loss rates were 29.33% for SE, 16.66% for SLE, and 3.89% for ER modes. Interactions between time periods and adhesive modes were found to be statistically significant (p < 0.05) for all FDI criteria. ER mode performed significantly better than SE mode for marginal staining, marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, erosion and abfraction criteria after the 36th month (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between SE and SLE mode (p > 0.05), nor between SLE and ER mode (p > 0.05).

Conclusions: After the 36-month evaluation of all adhesive modes used in the study, restorations performed with the ER adhesion mode were clinically good (2), while those performed with the SE adhesion mode and SLE adhesion mode were clinically satisfactory (3) according to the FDI criteria. The primary outcome, retention loss, was significantly lower in the ER mode compared to SE and SLE modes. For secondary outcomes, the ER mode showed better performance in marginal staining, marginal adaptation, and the recurrence of caries, erosion, and abfraction highlighting its clinical advantages for mid-term success in non-carious cervical lesions.

Clinical relevance: Restorations performed with the SE adhesion mode of universal adhesives exhibit clinically acceptable behavior after 36 months of evaluation, although with less success than those performed with the ER adhesion mode.

Clinical trial registration: Clinical trials number- NCT06227715, Clinical trials link: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06227715.

单粘结万能粘接剂治疗宫颈非龋齿病变36个月回顾性研究
目的:评价单键万能粘接剂(SBU) 36个月的临床表现;3M ESPE,德国)根据FDI标准使用不同的粘连模式治疗非龋牙宫颈病变(ncls)。主要结果是修复体的固位损失,次要结果包括边缘染色、边缘适应、术后敏感性和牙齿活力、龋蚀和拔牙的复发以及牙齿的完整性,所有这些都根据FDI标准进行评估。材料与方法:在本研究中,SBU胶粘剂应用于25例患者的246例ncls,采用不同的粘附模式:自蚀(SE),选择性搪瓷蚀刻(SLE)和蚀刻-冲洗(ER)。所有病变均采用相同的纳米复合树脂修复。使用FDI标准在第1、6、12、18和36个月对修复进行评估。SE、SLE和ER组之间的差异采用Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney U检验,其值为p。结果:36个月后召回率为96%。SE组、SLE组和ER组的保留率分别为29.33%、16.66%和3.89%。时间段和黏附模式之间的相互作用有统计学意义(p 0.05), SLE和ER模式之间的相互作用无统计学意义(p 0.05)。结论:在对研究中使用的所有黏附模式进行36个月的评估后,根据FDI标准,ER黏附模式的修复体临床良好(2),而SE黏附模式和SLE黏附模式的修复体临床满意(3)。与SE和SLE模式相比,ER模式的主要结局——体液潴留损失显著降低。次要结果方面,ER模式在边缘染色、边缘适应、龋齿复发、糜烂、抽离等方面表现较好,突出了其在宫颈非龋齿病变中期成功的临床优势。临床相关性:使用通用粘接剂的SE粘连模式进行修复,在36个月的评估后表现出临床可接受的行为,尽管比使用ER粘连模式的修复成功率要低。临床试验注册:临床试验编号- NCT06227715,临床试验链接:https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06227715。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical Oral Investigations
Clinical Oral Investigations 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
484
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The journal Clinical Oral Investigations is a multidisciplinary, international forum for publication of research from all fields of oral medicine. The journal publishes original scientific articles and invited reviews which provide up-to-date results of basic and clinical studies in oral and maxillofacial science and medicine. The aim is to clarify the relevance of new results to modern practice, for an international readership. Coverage includes maxillofacial and oral surgery, prosthetics and restorative dentistry, operative dentistry, endodontics, periodontology, orthodontics, dental materials science, clinical trials, epidemiology, pedodontics, oral implant, preventive dentistiry, oral pathology, oral basic sciences and more.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信