Journal of dentistry · 2025
Thirty-six months of clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the "no waiting" technique: A randomized clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
de Almeida Ram, Siqueira Fsf, Cantanhede L G, Carrillo K, Carpio-Salvatierra B, Ñaupari-Villasante R, Loguercio A D, Cardenas Afm
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of universal adhesives applied to non-carious cervical lesions using the standard application method (20 s) versus a 'no-waiting' technique in over a period.
METHODS: A total of 176 restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, bonding strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (Er) and self-etch (Se) strategies with the standard 20-second application, and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the Er and Se strategies with the 'no-waiting' technique. All cavities were restored with Filtek Z-350 XT and evaluated after 36 months using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses was performed using Friedman's repeated-measures ANOVA and the Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: After 36 months, the fracture/retention rates were 88.6 % (95 % CI: 76-95 %) for PBEr, 90.9 % (95 % CI:82-98 %) for PBSe, 100 % (95 % CI:92-100 %) for CQEr, and 84.1 % (95 % CI: 71-92 %) for CQSe. Forty-two restorations presented minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 36-month recall (6 for PBEr, 15 for PBSe, 5 for CQEr, and 16 for CQSe). Fifteen restorations exhibited minor marginal discoloration (4 for PBEr, 7 for PBSe, 3 for CQEr, and 8 for CQSe). No postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence was observed in any group at the 36-month evaluation.
CONCLUSION: CQ applied with the "no-waiting" technique showed lower fracture and retention with the self-etch strategy but demonstrated overall clinical performance comparable to PB. The etch-and-rinse strategy yielded fewer marginal discrepancies for both adhesives.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Since Clearfil Quick Bond applied with the "no-waiting" technique may present a higher risk of restoration loss when used with the self-etch approach, the etch-and-rinse strategy should be recommended.
METHODS: A total of 176 restorations were assigned to four groups according to the adhesive system, bonding strategy, and application mode: Prime&Bond Active (PB) applied using the etch-and-rinse (Er) and self-etch (Se) strategies with the standard 20-second application, and Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (CQ) applied using the Er and Se strategies with the 'no-waiting' technique. All cavities were restored with Filtek Z-350 XT and evaluated after 36 months using both the World Dental Federation (FDI) and U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses was performed using Friedman's repeated-measures ANOVA and the Wilcoxon test (α = 0.05).
RESULTS: After 36 months, the fracture/retention rates were 88.6 % (95 % CI: 76-95 %) for PBEr, 90.9 % (95 % CI:82-98 %) for PBSe, 100 % (95 % CI:92-100 %) for CQEr, and 84.1 % (95 % CI: 71-92 %) for CQSe. Forty-two restorations presented minor discrepancies in marginal adaptation at the 36-month recall (6 for PBEr, 15 for PBSe, 5 for CQEr, and 16 for CQSe). Fifteen restorations exhibited minor marginal discoloration (4 for PBEr, 7 for PBSe, 3 for CQEr, and 8 for CQSe). No postoperative sensitivity or caries recurrence was observed in any group at the 36-month evaluation.
CONCLUSION: CQ applied with the "no-waiting" technique showed lower fracture and retention with the self-etch strategy but demonstrated overall clinical performance comparable to PB. The etch-and-rinse strategy yielded fewer marginal discrepancies for both adhesives.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Since Clearfil Quick Bond applied with the "no-waiting" technique may present a higher risk of restoration loss when used with the self-etch approach, the etch-and-rinse strategy should be recommended.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
HumansDouble-Blind MethodDental Restoration, PermanentFemaleMaleResin CementsMiddle AgedAdultDentin-Bonding AgentsComposite ResinsTooth CervixDental BondingDental Restoration FailureDental Marginal AdaptationPolymethacrylic AcidsAcid Etching, DentalFollow-Up StudiesYoung AdultDental CementsBisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate