An 18-months' evaluation of self-etch and etch & rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions A three-year clinical evaluation of a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. The clinical effectiveness of various adhesive systems: an 18-month evaluation. Three-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. A randomized, controlled clinical trial of one-step self-etching adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions Clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions at 2 years The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at one year. One-year clinical evaluation of five single-step self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Improving clinical retention of one-step self-etching adhesive systems with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results. 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Durability of three simplified adhesive systems in Class V non-carious cervical dentin lesions. A randomized clinical evaluation of a one- and two-step self-etch adhesive over 24 months. Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Two-year clinical evaluation of one-step self-etch systems in non-carious cervical lesions.
Objective . In this intra-individual comparison ( an 18-months ' r and omized , controlled prospect i ve study ) , we evaluated the clinical performance of one self-etch and one “ etch & rinse ” adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions . Methods . Twenty-five patients with at least two pairs of similar-sized non-carious cervical lesions participated . Seventy-eight restorations were placed ; 39 with etch & rinse ( Single-Bond ) and 39 with self-etch ( Adper Prompt ) . Both adhesives were combined with the microfilled resin composite Filtek-A110 . The restorations were evaluated at baseline , 6 , 12 , and 18 months according to slightly modified USPHS criteria . Statistical differences between the adhesives was tested with McNemar 's test and clinical degradation over time for each material with the Fisher exact test ( α=0.05 ) . Results . Thirty pairs were evaluated at 12 and 18 months . Two self-etch restorations were lost after 18 months . Nine Adper Prompt and four Single-Bond restorations scored bravo for marginal adaptation at 18 months ( p<0.05 ) . Nine Adper Prompt and three Single-Bond restorations scored bravo for marginal discoloration ( p<0.05 ) . Conclusions . Both adhesive systems showed acceptable clinical retention rates according to the ADA full acceptance criteria for enamel-bonding systems in class V non-carious lesions . The self-etch adhesive showed a faster progressive marginal degradation OBJECTIVES The aim of the study was to assess a one-step self-etch adhesive ( Futurabond M , 1-SE ) and a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive ( Solobond M , 2-ER ) used in combination with the nano-hybrid composite ( Amaris ) in a prospect i ve clinical study on non-carious cervical lesions . METHODS 110 restorations were placed in 40 patients and grade d over 36 months according to aesthetical , functional and biological criteria ( Clinical Oral Investigations 2007;11:5 ) . The four-step etch- and -rinse adhesive Syntac classic ( 4-ER ) combined with the nano-hybrid composite Tetric EvoCeram was used as a control . Cumulative failure rates ( CFR ) , retention rates and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were calculated for each observation period . RESULTS After 3 years , the CFR of 33.3 % in the 2-ER group was significantly higher compared to those of the 1-SE group ( 9.1 % , p = 0.019 ) and of the 4-ER group ( 8.3 % , p = 0.035 ) . Additionally , retention rates in the 1-SE and the 4-ER groups were higher compared to 2-ER ( p = 0.012 each ) after 36 months . Annual failure rates ranged between 2.8 % for 4-ER , 3.0 % for 1-SE and 11.1 % for 2-ER . During the study , restorations in all groups showed progressive marginal deterioration within the limits of clinical acceptance . After 3 years , restorations in the 2-ER and the 4-ER group showed more small defects at dentin than at enamel margins . CONCLUSIONS The 1-SE group was clinical ly as successful as the 4-ER , with both performing better than the 2-ER group . Futurabond M/Amaris can be recommended for the restoration of sclerotic non-carious cervical lesions . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Number protocol 192/2008 The aim of this clinical trial was to compare the clinical performance of three different adhesive systems over 18 months in noncarious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) . Thirty patients , with at least three noncarious cervical lesions , were enrolled in the study . One operator r and omly restored a total of 90 lesions with resin composite ( Herculite XRV ) . The restorations were bonded with either Optibond FL ( OF ) , three-step total-etch ; Optibond Solo Plus ( OS ) , two-step total-etch ; or Optibond All-In-One ( OA ) , one step self-etch . The restorations were clinical ly evaluated at baseline and after six , 12 , and 18 months using the eight United States Public Health Services criteria . Data were analyzed using Friedman and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests ( p<0.05 ) . After 18 months , the retention rate was ( OF ) 96.5 % , ( OS ) 93.1 % , and ( OA ) 89.7 % . Differences among the three adhesive systems for evaluated criteria were not observed in comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages . There was a significant increase in marginal discoloration for ( OA ) adhesive  after 18 months compared with baseline ( p=0.011 ) . Other restoration criteria had no statistically significant differences among the three adhesives ( p>0.05 ) . With the exception of marginal discoloration , the clinical effectiveness of three types of adhesive systems in NCCLs was acceptable after 18 months . However , using the one-step self-etch adhesive may lead to some marginal discolorations Despite the fact that one-step adhesives are currently used routinely in clinical practice , long-term studies on their clinical performance are scarce . The objective of this r and omized controlled clinical trial was to test the hypothesis that a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free one-step self-etch adhesive performs worse than a conventional multistep etch- and -rinse adhesive .  Two-hundred and seventy-six non-carious cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with a micro-hybrid composite  ( Gradia Direct ; GC ) . These restorations were bonded in r and om order either with the HEMA-free one-step adhesive G-Bond ( GC ) or with the ' gold-st and ard ' ( control ) three-step adhesive Optibond FL ( Kerr ) . The restorations were evaluated after 6 , 12 , 24 , and 36 months of clinical service regarding retention , marginal adaptation , microleakage , caries occurrence , and sensitivity . After a medium-long period of 3 yr , similar success in clinical performance was observed for the simplified all-in-one adhesive and the conventional three-step adhesive . However , the one-step adhesive exhibited significantly more incisal marginal defects and discolorations . Whereas marginal degradation appeared to arrest for the multistep etch- and -rinse adhesive after 12 months , the enamel margins of the restorations bonded with the one-step self-etch adhesive continued to deteriorate . These incisal marginal defects were , however , small and could easily be removed by polishing . For both adhesives , large and sclerosed lesions appeared to be at higher risk of retention loss PURPOSE To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of two different one-step self-etching adhesives . METHODS Two single-step self-etching adhesive systems , Clearfil Tri-S Bond and G-Bond , were evaluated . As a control , a two-step self-etching adhesive system , Clearfil SE Bond , was used . The teeth to be restored were r and omly assigned . The resin composite used to restore the teeth was Clearfil AP-X. The three adhesive systems were evaluated by Modified USPHS at baseline , 3 months , 6 months , and 12 months . The evaluation consisted of retention rate , color match , marginal discoloration ( interfacial staining ) , marginal adaptation ( integrity ) , wear , post-operative sensitivity , caries recurrence , and other failures . Changes over time and across groups were evaluated statistically using generalized estimating equations . RESULTS During the 12-month study period , no statistical differences were observed among the three groups ( P > 0.05 ) in retention rate , color match , marginal discoloration ( interfacial staining ) , marginal adaptation ( integrity ) . No wear , post-operative sensitivity , caries recurrence , or other failures were detected in any groups . The two one-step self-etching adhesives tested showed good clinical performance at the end of 12 months Objectives The objective of this r and omized controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of a 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free one-step adhesive . Material s and methods Two hundred sixty-seven cervical lesions in 52 patients were restored with the composite Gradia Direct ( GC ) , bonded with either the one-step self-etch adhesive G-Bond ( GC ) or the three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive Optibond FL ( Kerr ) in a r and om order . The restorations were evaluated for retention , marginal integrity , marginal discoloration , and caries occurrence after 5 years . Specific statistics were used to account for the clustered data ( multiple restorations per patient ) . Results The clinical success rate for G-Bond ( 87.4 % ) was not significantly different from that of Optibond FL ( 90.9 % ) . Both adhesives showed progressive marginal deterioration , but G-Bond exhibited more small enamel defects and marginal discoloration , and unlike previous recalls , several restorations failed because of deep microleakage . Large sclerotic lesions were a significant risk factor for retention loss with G-Bond . Irrespective of the adhesive , almost all restorations with retention loss were located in the lower jaw . Conclusion After 5 years of clinical service , restorations bonded with the HEMA-free one-step adhesive did not need repair or replacement more often than those with the three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive , and both adhesives had a high retention rate ( > 90 % ) . There were indications that G-Bond did not (self-)etch enough in some clinical situations , as G-Bond exhibited more incisal defects and marginal discolorations , and sclerotic lesions were at higher risk of retention loss . Clinical relevance The clinical performance of the HEMA-free one-step adhesive was clinical ly acceptable after 5 years A 2-year r and omized , controlled prospect i ve study evaluated the clinical effectiveness of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a “ gold-st and ard ” three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive in non-carious Class-V lesions . The null hypothesis tested was that the one-step self-etch adhesive does perform clinical ly equally well as the three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive .  A total of 161 lesions in 26 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X ( Kuraray ) .  The restorations were bonded either with the “ all-in-one ” adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond ( Kuraray ) or with the three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive Optibond FL ( Kerr ) . The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months , 1 and 2 years , regarding their retention , marginal adapation , marginal discoloration , caries occurrence , preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensivity . Retention loss , severe marginal defects and /or discoloration that needed intervention ( repair or replacement ) and the occurrence of caries were considered as clinical failures . The recall rate at 2 years was 93.8 % . Only one Clearfil S3 Bond restoration was lost at the 2-year recall . All other restorations were clinical ly acceptable . The number of restorations with defect-free margins decreased severely during the 2-year study period ( to 6.7 % and 25.3 % for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL , respectively ) . The Clearfil S3 Bond restorations presented significantly more small marginal defects at the enamel side than the Optibond FL restorations ( Clearfil S3 Bond : 93.3 % ; Optibond FL : 73.3 % ; p = 0.000 ) . Superficial marginal discoloration increased in both groups ( to 53.3 % and 36 % for Clearfil S3 Bond and Optibond FL , respectively ) and was also more pronounced in the Clearfil S3 Bond group ( p = 0.007 ) . After 2 years , the simplified one-step self-etch adhesive Clearfil S3 Bond and the three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive Optibond FL were clinical ly equally successful , even though both adhesives were characterized by progressive degradation in marginal integrity .  Clearfil S3 Bond exhibited more small enamel marginal defects and superficial marginal discolorations BACKGROUND The author compared the clinical performance of a two-step self-etching adhesive system and a one-step self-etching adhesive system over one year . METHODS Thirty-five patients with noncarious cervical lesions were enrolled in the study . The author restored 163 lesions using a two-step ( Clearfil Protect Bond , Kuraray , Osaka , Japan ) or a one-step ( Xeno III , Dentsply/DeTrey , Konstanz , Germany ) self-etching adhesive system . Enamel margins were not beveled , and no mechanical retentions were placed . The author evaluted the restorations at baseline and at three , six , nine and 12 months after placement using modified Ryge criteria for color-matching ability , marginal discoloration , marginal adaptation , initial caries formation , anatomical form , postoperative sensitivity and retention loss . RESULTS The author assessed the changes in the parameters using the Cochran Q test and the McNemar test at a significance level of .05 . At one year , the retention rates for the restorations in the two-step group were 100 percent ; they were 96 percent for the restorations in the one-step group . Of the retained 75 restorations from the one-step group , two had marginal discoloration and slight anatomical form problems . In both groups , color-matching ability and postoperative sensitivity remained excellent . CONCLUSION The performance of both self-etching adhesive systems was excellent during this one-year clinical trial . However , the two-step system exhibited slightly better retention than the one-step system . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems evaluated in this study provided excellent clinical retention in noncarious lesions without mechanical retention This study evaluated the clinical performance of five single-step self-etch adhesive systems over a one-year follow-up period in 98 restorations . Independent evaluations were performed at baseline ( one week ) , after three months , six months , and one year , by two trained examiners using the modified US Public Health Service rating criteria . Color match , marginal integrity , anatomical form , surface roughness , marginal or interfacial staining , postoperative sensitivity , and secondary caries were evaluated . Results were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test at a significance level of p<0.05 . After one year , the restorations were re-evaluated and 100 % retention rate was recorded . No caries were detected in association with any of the restorations . Marginal adaptation was the only measure that showed a slight deterioration over time , and there were no significant differences in this factor among the adhesive systems tested ( p=0.464 ) BACKGROUND The durability of restorations bonded with one-step self-etching ( OSSE ) adhesive systems is inferior compared with that of restorations bonded with conventional adhesives . The authors conducted an 18-month r and omized clinical study to evaluate the clinical performance of two OSSE systems in noncarious cervical lesions applied as recommended or with an extra layer of hydrophobic adhesive layer after 18 months of clinical service . METHODS Thirty participants , each of whom had at least two pairs of similar-sized noncarious cervical lesions , took part in this study . The authors placed 120 restorations  , 30 in each of four groups : Clearfil S3 Bond ( Kuraray , Osaka , Japan ) ( CS ) and iBond Gluma inside ( Heraeus Kulzer , Hanau , Germany ) ( IB ) , and Clearfil S3 Bond ( CSB ) and iBond Gluma inside ( IBB ) with an extra layer of hydrophobic adhesive applied on top of them . They placed the restorations incrementally , using a resin-based composite . The authors evaluated the restorations at baseline and at 18 months following modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria . RESULTS At 18 months , the retention rate for the IB group was statistically lower than those for the CS , IBB and CSB groups . Marginal discoloration occurred in all groups and was statistically worse in the IB group . CONCLUSIONS The conversion of the iBond Gluma inside and Clearfil S3 Bond adhesive systems into two-step systems by means of applying an extra hydrophobic adhesive layer improved the clinical performance of these material s after 18 months of clinical service . CLINICAL IMPLICATION S The application of an extra hydrophobic adhesive layer over OSSE adhesive systems , layers improved the OSSE systems clinical performance , mainly in terms of retention rate STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM With Institutional Review Board approval , 39 patients who needed restoration of noncarious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) were enrolled in this study . A total of 125 NCCLs were selected and r and omly assigned to four groups : 1 ) a three-step etch- and -rinse adhesive , Adper Scotchbond Multi- Purpose ( MP , 3 M ESPE , St Paul , MN , USA ) ; 2 ) a two-step etch- and -rinse adhesive , Adper Single Bond Plus ( SB , 3 M ESPE ) ; 3 ) a two-step self-etch adhesive , Adper Scotchbond SE ( SE , 3 M ESPE ) ; and 4 ) a one-step self-etch adhesive , Adper Easy Bond ( EB , 3 M ESPE ) . A nanofilled composite resin was used for all restorations . Restorations were evaluated at six months and 18 months using modified U.S. Public Health Service ( USPHS ) parameters . RESULTS At six months after initial placement , 107 restorations ( 85.6 % recall rate ) were evaluated . At 18 months , 94 restorations ( 75.2 % recall rate ) were available for evaluation . The 6 mo/18 mo overall retention rates ( % ) were 100/90.9 for MP ; 100/91.7 for SB ; 100/90.9 for SE ; and 96.4/92.3 for EB with no statistical difference between any pair of groups at each recall . Sensitivity to air decreased significantly for all adhesives from the preoperative to the postoperative stage and was stable thereafter . Interfacial staining did not change statistically from baseline to six months ; however , interfacial staining at the enamel margins was statistically worse at 18 months than at baseline for the two self-etch adhesives EB and SE . Marginal adaptation was statistically worse at 18 months compared with baseline only for EB . This tendency was already significant at the six-month recall . CONCLUSION Although 18-month retention was similar for the different adhesion strategies , enamel marginal deficiencies were more prevalent for the self-etch adhesives OBJECTIVES Despite representing an important component of current dental adhesives , HEMA has been said to negatively influence the long-term stability of adhesion to dentine and enamel . The aim of this r and omised clinical trial was to evaluate the 3-year clinical performance of two one-step self-etch adhesives . METHODS Thirty patients had 175 non-carious cervical lesions restored with composite ( Gradia Direct Anterior , GC ) using either the HEMA-rich adhesive Clearfil Tri-S Bond ( C3S ; Kuraray ) or the HEMA-free adhesive G-Bond ( GB ; GC ) . The restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline , 6 , 12 , 24 and 36 months regarding retention , caries recurrence , marginal integrity and discoloration and post-operative sensitivity . The data were statistically analysed with GEE and McNemar tests ( p<0.05 ) . RESULTS The recall rate at 6 and 12 months was 100 % and decreased to 96.7 % at 24 and 36 months . At 3 years , the retention rate was 93.8 % for C3S and 98.8 % for GB ( p=0.14 ) . A pairwise comparison showed no significant differences between the two adhesives for all the parameters evaluated , irrespective of the recall ( p>0.05 ) . After 3 years , both adhesives presented an increase in the percentage of clinical ly acceptable marginal discoloration ( C3S : 32.9 % and GB : 26.8 % ) normally associated to clinical ly acceptable marginal defects ( C3S : 35.8 % and GB : 26.5 % ) . Only 1 dentine margin of a GB restoration presented a severe marginal defect ( 1.2 % ) and 1 C3S restoration presented caries recurrence . The overall 3-year clinical success rate was 92.6 % for C3S and 97.6 % for GB ( p=0.16 ) . CONCLUSION Both one-step self-etch adhesives presented an equally favourable clinical effectiveness at 3 years . CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE HEMA is a monomer frequently present in dental adhesives in order to increase their wettability and hydrophilicity . However , this monomer negatively influences hydrolytic stability and durability of the adhesive interface complex . In this 3-year clinical trial no significant difference in bonding effectiveness was noticed between a HEMA-rich and HEMA-free one-step adhesive PURPOSE To investigate the durability of three simplified systems in Class V non-carious abrasion/erosion lesions . METHODS 144 non-carious cervical dentin lesions were restored either with Clearfil Liner Bond 2 , a 2-step self-etching primer ( n = 46 ) , One Coat Bond , a one bottle total-etch system applied with one coat ( n = 46 ) , or Prompt-L-Pop , a 1-step self-etching primer ( " all-in-one " ) ( n = 52 ) , in 90 individuals . Ninety-eight of the lesions showed sclerotic dentin and 46 were non-sclerotic . Sixty-one were slightly roughened with a diamond bur before conditioning . The restorations were evaluated every 6 months during a 2-year period with slightly modified USPHS criteria . RESULTS All except three restorations were evaluated over 2 years . The cumulative loss rates for Clearfil Liner Bond 2 , One Coat Bond and Prompt-L-Pop were at 6 months : 4.3 , 2.2 and 3.9 % , at 18 months : 4.3 , 10.9 and 15.4 % and at 24 months : 8.7 , 13.0 and 21.2 % , respectively . The cumulative loss rates of the material s in sclerotic lesions ( 15.7 % ) versus non-sclerotic lesions ( 14.0 % ) were not significanty different . Restorations placed with a diamond bur-roughened lesions showed a loss rate of 14.5 % , while for the non-roughened lesions the frequency was 14.8 % OBJECTIVE To evaluate the performance of All Bond SE used in a one- or two-step protocol in a 24-month r and omized clinical study . METHODS Thirty-three patients with two similarly sized non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study . A total of 66 restorations were placed , half using the one-step All Bond SE protocol ( SE-1 ) and the other half using the two-step All Bond SE protocol ( SE-2 ) . The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 , 12 and 24 months following the modified USPHS criteria and analyzed by the McNemar 's test and Fisher 's exact test ( alpha = 0.05 ) . RESULTS After 24 months , six SE-1 and four SE-2 restorations were rated as Bravo in marginal discoloration The retention rates for SE-1 and SE-2 were 84.8 % and 90.9 % , respectively , after 24 months . Compared to baseline , the retention rate for SE-1 was statistically lower . CONCLUSIONS All Bond SE used in the one- or two-step protocol result ed in high retention rates after 24 months OBJECTIVE The objective of this r and omized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 13-year clinical performance of a mild two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with and without prior selective phosphoric acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins . METHODS A total of 100 non-carious cervical lesions in 29 patients were restored with Clearfil AP-X ( Kuraray Noritake ) . The composite restorations were bonded following two different approaches : ( 1 ) application of Clearfil SE Bond ( Kuraray Noritake ) following a self-etch approach ( CSE-NE ) ; ( 2 ) selective phosphoric acid-etching of enamel cavity margins before application of Clearfil SE Bond ( CSE-E ) . The restorations were evaluated after 6 months , 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 8 and 13 years of clinical service regarding retention , marginal integrity and discoloration , caries occurrence , preservation of tooth vitality and post-operative sensitivity . RESULTS The patient recall rate at 13 years was 62 % . Six restorations , 4 of the CSE-NE group and 2 of the CSE-E group , were clinical ly unacceptable due to loss of retention ( 1 CSE-NE , 1 CSE-E ) , a severe marginal defect ( 2 CSE-NE , 1 CSE-E ) and caries occurrence in combination with a severe marginal defect ( 1 CSE-NE ) leading to a clinical success rate of 86 % ( CSE-NE ) and 93 % ( CSE-E ) . Ageing of the restorations was characterized by a further increase in the percentage of restorations with a clinical ly acceptable small marginal defect ( CSE-NE : 87 % ; CSE-E : 83 % ) and /or superficial marginal discoloration ( CSE-NE : 53 % ; CSE-E : 56 % ) . The presence of small marginal defects ( CSE-NE : 86 % ; CSE-E : 68 % ) and superficial marginal discoloration ( CSE-NE : 41 % ; CSE-E : 20 % ) at the incisal enamel side was more frequently noticed in the CSE-NE group than in the CSE-E group . The difference , however , was not statistically significant ( McNemar , p>0.05 ) . SIGNIFICANCE After 13 years , the clinical effectiveness of Clearfil SE Bond in non-carious Class-V lesions remained excellent , with selective acid-etching of the enamel cavity margins only having some minor positive effect on marginal integrity and absence of marginal discoloration The use of adhesive material s to restore non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCL ) has become the st and ard practice . Until recently , the most reliable material for restoring NCCL is glass ionomer cement , but the esthetics can be problematic . This study compared the retention of a self-etching adhesive , Clearfil SE Bond , with Clearfil ST resin composite ( SE ) , with the phosphoric acid-etch single bottle adhesive Single Bond with A110 resin composite ( SB ) and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement , Fuji II LC , ( FJ ) .  Ninety-two restorations in 20 patients ( mean age 61 years ) were placed . The teeth were restored r and omly and manufacturers ' instructions were followed . Patients were recalled at 6 months , 1 , 2 and 3 years and the restorations were evaluated for marginal staining . The restorations were photographed at baseline and at recall periods . At one year , 80 restorations were available for evaluation ; at 2 years , 65 restorations were evaluated and at 3 years , 55 restorations were evaluated . The cumulative retention rates at 1 year , 2 years and 3 years , respectively , were SE : 97 % , 93 % , 90 % ; SB : 86 % , 77 % , 77 % ; FJ : 100 % , 100 % , 97 % . At 3 years , RM-GIC performed the best , followed by Clearfil SE Bond/Clearfil ST . Single Bond/A110 's performance was significantly less than the other 2 material s ( p = 0.012 ) OBJECTIVES This r and omized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 2-year clinical performance of S3 Bond ( S3 ) and G-Bond ( GB ) in 108 non-carious cervical lesions . METHODS Twenty-three patients , 12 male and 11 female ( mean age : 61.8 years , range : 30 - 79 years ) regularly visiting the Nagasaki University Hospital of Medicine and Dentistry , participated in the study . Each patient received both material s r and omly . All restorations ( 53 restorations for S3 and 55 restorations for GB ) were placed by one dentist . The restorations were blindly evaluated by two examiners at baseline , 6 months , 1 and 2 years using modified USPHS criteria . The data were statistically analyzed using the Cochran Q test and Fisher 's exact test . RESULTS One restoration of each material was lost during 2 years . The only minor clinical problem was the integrity of the enamel margin . Slight marginal staining occurred adjacent to 11 restorations of both S3 and GB . There was no significant difference in the clinical performance between S3 and GB for each variable . CONCLUSIONS Under the protocol used in this study , S3 and GB have demonstrated an acceptable clinical performance up to 2 years
There is not enough evidence to support one adhesive or bonding strategy over another for treatment of NCCLs .
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE Studies with low overall risk of bias demonstrated good clinical performance for adhesives with all four bonding strategies .
However , included studies showed wide variation between adhesives of the same category
OBJECTIVES To establish whether simplified adhesives ( self-etch ) are as clinical ly effective as conventional adhesives ( etch- and -rinse ) with multiple application steps for treatment of non-carious cervical lesions ( NCCLs ) .
NULL HYPOTHESIS there is no difference in the clinical effectiveness of the four different bonding strategies : Three-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step etch- and -rinse ; Two-step self-etch ; One-step self-etch for treatment of NCCLs .