Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the 24-month clinical performance of universal adhesives on the restoration success of Class I carious lesions.

Materials and methods

Five different universal adhesives (Gluma Bond Universal (GU), Clearfil Universal (CU), Prime&Bond Elect Universal (PU), All bond Universal (AU), and Single Bond Universal (SU)) were used in the self-etch and etch-and-rinse modes in 42 patients. The study was conducted with 10 groups, with 20 restorations in each group. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and during a 24-month recall using World Dental Federation (FDI) and the US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. The changes in the parameters were analyzed using the chi-square test.

Results

At the end of 24 months, there was no loss of restoration in any group. According to the USPHS, there was no difference in the baseline and 24-month clinical behavior of the restorations (P ˃ 0.05). However, according to the FDI, when adhesives were used in the self-etch mode, three adhesives (GU, SU, PU) showed marginal incompatibility, and one adhesive showed (GU) marginal discoloration between baseline and the 24-month follow-up evaluation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference after 24 months between etch-and-rinse and self-etch groups according to the results based on both the USPHS and FDI criteria (P ˃ 0.05).

Conclusions

The 24-month clinical performance of the evaluated universal adhesives depends on the adhesive strategy.

Clinical relevance

This study helps clinicians to decide in which mode (etch-and-rinse or self-etch) universal adhesives can be safely used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y et al (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A (2011) State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater 27:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Pashley DH, Agee KA, Carvalho RM, Lee KW, Tay FR, Callison TE (2003) Effects of water and water-free polar solvents on the tensile properties of demineralized dentin. Dent Mater 19:347–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00065-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y et al (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28:215–235

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J et al (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL et al (2010) Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater 26:1176–1184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Akimoto N, Takamizu M, Momoi Y (2007) 10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system. Oper Dent 32:3–10. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. van Dijken JW, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K, Lindberg A (2007) Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater 23:1101–1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Kimmes NS (2009) Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to pre-etched enamel. Dent Mater 25:1187–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Rotta M, Bresciani P, Moura SK et al (2007) Effects of phosphoric acid pretreatment and substitution of bonding resin on bonding effectiveness of self-etching systems to enamel. J Adhes Dent 9:537–545

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS (2014) Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent 16:243–250

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U (2014) Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 42:800–807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.04.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Yoshida Y, Van Meerbeek B, Nakayama Y et al (2001) Adhesion to and decalcification of hydroxyapatite by carboxylic acids. J Dent Res 80:1565–1569. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345010800061701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K et al (2015) Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 31:308–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishioka S, Caputo AA (1989) Interaction between the dentinal smear layer and composite bond strength. J Prosthet Dent 61:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90370-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, van Ende A, van Meerbeek B, de Munck J (2012) Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 40:475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Munoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez I et al (2014) Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the bonding efficacy of three universal adhesives. J Dent 42:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosà M, Cadenaro M, di Lenarda R, Pashley DH, Tay F, Breschi L (2014) Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 42:603–612

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, Chen JH, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2015) Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine—old wine in new bottles? J Dent 43:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jang JH, Lee MG, Woo SU et al (2016) Comparative study of the dentin bond strength of a new universal adhesive. Dent Mater J 35:606–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Munoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A et al (2013) Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent 41:404–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA et al (2013) A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 25:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP et al (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39:113–127. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-045-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO (2015) Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 43:1229–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M et al (2010) FDI world dental federation—clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations. Update and clinical examples. J Adhes Dent 12:259–272

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjör IA, Peters M, Rousson V, Randall R, Schmalz G, Tyas M, Vanherle G (2007) Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 11:5–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-007-0168-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Perdigao J, Dutra-Correa M, Saraceni CH et al (2012) Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results. Oper Dent 37:3–11. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-222-C

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Piva F, Coelho-Souza FH (2009) A deciduous teeth composite restoration clinical trial using two methods. J Dent Res 88(Special Issue A) (abstract 3241)

  30. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV (2012) Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 91:376–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Lin A, McIntyre NS, Davidson RD (1992) Studies on the adhesion of glass-ionomer cements to dentin. J Dent Res 71:1836–1841. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710111401

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Luque-Martinez IV, Perdigao J, Munoz MA et al (2014) Effects of solvent evaporation time on immediate adhesive properties of universal adhesives to dentin. Dent Mater 30:1126–1135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by Erciyes University, Department of Scientific Projects and Researches with the project number of TDH-2015-5930.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Erciyes University, 38039, Melikgazi, Kayseri, Turkey

    Nazire Nurdan Çakır & Sezer Demirbuga

Authors
  1. Nazire Nurdan Çakır
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sezer Demirbuga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nazire Nurdan Çakır.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Erciyes University Clinical Researches, Ethics Committee with the protocol number 2015/281.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Çakır, N.N., Demirbuga, S. The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up. Clin Oral Invest 23, 2767–2776 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2708-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2708-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation