Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2024 Dec 28;29(1):33.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06126-y.

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

Hatice Tepe  1 , Ozge Celiksoz  2 , Batu Can Yaman  2
Affiliations
Clinical Trial

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

Hatice Tepe et al. Clin Oral Investig. .

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.

Keywords: Etch-and-rinse; FDI criteria; Non-carious cervical lesion; Selective-enamel-etching; Self-etch; Universal adhesive.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: This clinical trial was conducted in Faculty of Dentistry- Osmangazi University, Turkey and was implemented following the ethical principles stated in the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. The research protocol was reviewed and approved by the research ethics committee of the faculty with approval number E-25403353-050.99-2400074339. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Fuentes MV, Perdigão J, Baracco B, Giráldez I, Ceballos L (2023) Effect of an additional bonding resin on the 5-year performance of a universal adhesive: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 27(2):837–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04613-8 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A, Berry TP, Watanabe H, Erickson RL et al (2016) Influence of different etching modes on bond strength and fatigue strength to dentin using universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater 32(2):e9–e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.11.005 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Oz FD, Ergin E, Canatan S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL–a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0358
    1. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosa M, Cadenaro M et al (2014) Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 42(5):603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr, Wilder AD Jr et al (2016) Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 32(9):1065–1072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.06.003 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources