Clinical Evaluation of a Universal Adhesive in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Abstract

The “total-etch” or “etch-and-rinse” systems have been the gold standard of dental bonding for decades. However, these systems are very technique-sensitive and time-consuming compared to newer “self-etch” or “self-adhesive” systems and have been implicated in cases of postoperative sensitivity. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two surface treatment protocols (self-etch vs. selective-etch) on the clinical performance of a universal adhesive and resin composite in Class V non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty-three volunteer subjects (17 male; 16 female; age range = 20 to 75 years) having at least two NCCLs were selected from patients of record at Indiana University School of Dentistry. Each subject received one resin composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) utilizing a self-etch (SfE) universal adhesive (Adhese Universal, Ivoclar Vivadent) with no separate enamel etching and another restoration utilizing adhesive and selective enamel etching (SelE) with 37% phosphoric acid (H3PO4). Both the adhesive and composite were placed following the manufacturer’s instructions. The two techniques were compared for differences in sensitivity, retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and clinical acceptability at baseline and 6 months using the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel tests for stratified, ordered categorical outcomes. Seventy-four restorations (37 SfE, 37 SelE) in 30 volunteers were evaluated at 12 months. No significant differences were found between the SfE and SelE groups for any variable at the 12-month recall (p>0.21). Retention was 100% at 12 months for both groups. Marginal adaptation was significantly worse at 12 months than at baseline for SelE (p=0.0163), but there was no difference for SfE (p=0.08). Sensitivity improved significantly from baseline to 12 months for both SelE (p=0.0113) and SfE (p=0.0128). The results obtained from this study are comparable to results observed in similar studies. Like similar studies involving self-etch adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions, our study showed no restorations lost to caries and excellent retention. The deterioration of selective-etch dentin margins was a result that differed from similar studies. A likely explanation for this finding would be the difficulty of controlling precise placement of phosphoric acid gel, causing undesired etching of dentin; this could result in suboptimal bonding to dentin. This report on 12-month data for a two-year study indicates significantly reduced sensitivity for both the SelE and SfE groups, and deterioration of SelE marginal adaptation. No decreases in retention, marginal discoloration, or clinical acceptability were observed in either group.