Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.300

PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL EVALUATION OF THREE DIFFERENT BONDING SYSTEMS IN CLASS V RESIN RESTORATIONS WITH OR WITHOUT MECHANICAL RETENTION  

Lee Kyung-Wook (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Choung Sae-Joon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Han Young-Chul (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Son Ho-Hyun (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Um Chung-Moon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Oh Myoung-Hwan (Vericom R&D Center)
Cho Byeong-Hoon (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics / v.31, no.4, 2006 , pp. 300-311 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to evaluate prospectively the effect of different bonding systems and retention grooves on the clinical performance of resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty-nine healthy adults who had at least 2 NCCLs in their premolar areas were included in this study. One hundred and fifty teeth were equally assigned to six groups: (A) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 4th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (B) SBMP with retention grooves; (C) BC Plus (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea, 5th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (D) BC Plus with retention grooves; (E) Adper Prompt (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany, 6th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (F) Adper Prompt with retention grooves. All cavities were filled with a hybrid composite resin. Denfil (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea) by one operator. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month recall, according to the modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Additionally, clinical photographs were taken and epoxy resin replicas were made for SEM evaluation. At 6-month recall, there were some differences in the number of alpha ratings among the experimental groups. But, despite the differences in the number of alpha ratings, there was no significant difference among the 3 adhesive systems (p < 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups with or without mechanical retention (p < 0.05). Follow-ups for longer periods than 6 months are needed to verify the clinical performance of different bonding systems and retention grooves.
Keywords
Class V resin restoration; Bonding system; Retention groove; Prospective clinical study; USPHS criteria;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Borcic J, Anic I, Smojver I, Catic A, Miletic I, Ribaric SP. 3D finite element model and cervical lesion formation in normal occlusion and in malocclusion. J Oral Rehabil 32:504-510. 2005   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N. Self-etching primer and resin-based restorative material: two-year clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 14:296-302, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Tanaka M, Naito T, Yokota M, Kohno M. Finite element analysis of the possible mechanism of cervical lesion formation by occlusal force. J Oral Rehabil 30:60-67. 2003   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 79: 1385-1391. 2000   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Duke ES, Robbins JW, Snyder DS. Clinical evaluation of a dentinal adhesive system: three-year results. Quintessence Int 22:889-895, 1991
6 McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc 129:593-599, 1998   DOI
7 Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent 16:329-334.2003
8 Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 87: 369-377, 1973   DOI
9 Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing performance of two one-step adhesive systems in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 6:211-219, 2004
10 Yoshida E, Uno S. Voids formation along the bonding interface between a smeared dentin surface and all-inone adhesives. Dent Mater J 23:643-649, 2004   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Singlestep, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent 17:315-322,2004
12 Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR. Cordeiro HJ, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent 18:135-140,2005
13 Duke ES, Lindemuth J. Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent 4:241-246, 1991
14 Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 5:315-317,1992
15 Tilliss TS, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Dent Hyg 76:296-310, 2002
16 Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent 18: 130-137, 1993
17 Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 22: 195-207, 1994   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Smales RJ, Gerke DC. Clinical evaluation of lightcured anterior resin composites over periods of up to 4 years. Am J Dent 5:208-212. 1992
19 Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P. Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 3:237-245.2001
20 Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 27: 117-123. 2002
21 Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 3 :45-64, 2001
22 Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. ed 2. Illinois. Quintessence Publishing, 2001. p396
23 Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 23 :481-486, 2001
24 Kanemura N, Sano H. Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 27:523-530, 1999   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 30:371-382,2002   DOI   ScienceOn
26 Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 11:117-125,1995   DOI   ScienceOn
27 Wucher M, Grobler SR. Senekal PJ. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent 15:274-278, 2002
28 Bader JD. Levitch LC. Shugars DA. Heymann HO. McClure F. How dentists classified and treated noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assac 124:46-54. 1993   DOI
29 Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH. Tay FR. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent 30:83-90, 2002   DOI   ScienceOn
30 Browning WD. Brackett WW. Gilpatrick RO. Retention of microfilled and hybrid resin-based composite in noncarious Class 5 lesions: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 24:26-30, 1999