Background:The complicated nature of Non-carious cervical lesions together with their characteristic substrate
impacts the adhesive restoration process in detrimental ways. The versatility of universal adhesives led to their
increased popularity as a suitable solution for restoring NCCLs. The research examined the long-term clinical success
of three universal adhesives which received three distinct bonding methods.
Materials and Methods:This clinical trial treated 60 patients with 240 NCCLs using three universal adhesive
systems: SBU as well as PBE and FBU. Experimental groups totaled six through the application of the three adhesives
using both self-etch SE and etch-and-rinse ER protocols. Two trained examiners conducted USPHS modified criteria
evaluation of restorations at baseline through 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 month points regarding retention and marginal
adaptation as well as marginal color changes and secondary tooth decay and post-treatment sensitivity features.
Results:For 5-year follow-up the retention rates reached 93.6% in the ER mode group which proved superior to the
retention rates achieved with the SE mode at 83.0% (p<0.05). number of SBU restorations remained in place at
(94.6%) which was higher than PBE (89.2%) and FBU (85.6%). Among different experimental groups the marginal
adaptation and discoloration worsened progressively until reaching unacceptable limits yet self-etch mode presented
the most severe marginal defects. Every group displayed similar rates when it came to postoperative sensitivity and
secondary caries development.
Conclusion:Results indicated that universal adhesives functioned well throughout five years in treatment of noncarious cervical lesions. The bonding strategy with etch-and-rinse manifestation produced better retention and better marginal quality when compared to self-etch bonding. The clinical durability was influenced by the adhesive type where SBU produced the best results.
Hi! I can explain how to publish or share, find articles in your field, format citations and answer questions about fees and licensing. How can I help?
Answers are based on The Gufo’s published policies. Editorial decisions are made by the editorial team.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
