Method: Twenty-three patients with at least three non-carious cervical lesions enrolled in the study. Each patient randomly received minimum three cervical restorations placed following different enamel etching methods:(1) 37% phosphoric acid-etching for 30s, (2) laser-etching with Er,Cr:YSGG laser (1.25W, 10Hz); (3) no treatment-control. The cavities were restored using a one-step self-etch adhesive, Futurabond M and resin composite, Amaris. A total of 156 restorations (52 with each procedure) were placed according to manufacturer's instructions by two calibrated operators. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, and 12 months using USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted using the Pearson chi-square and McNemar tests (p < 0.05).
Result: The recall rate was 100% at 6 months recall. Two restorations received crown and five restorations were lost in control group at 6 months recall. At 12 months, recall rate was 98%. Three restorations from acid- and two from laser-etched group rated as Bravo for color match. Two restorations form laser-etched group rated as Bravo for marginal discoloration. In terms of marginal adaptation, two restorations from acid- and laser-etched group and 5 from control group received Bravo scores. One restoration from laser-etched and 5 from control group were lost. The retention rate was 100% for acid, 98% for laser and 88.6% for control group. Statistically significant differences were found among the groups only in terms of retention (p=0.011). All restorations had 100% Alpha scores for the rest of the criteria evaluated (p>0.05). In comparisons between time intervals, no statistically changes were found within each group (p>0.05).
Conclusion: With the exception of retention, all groups performed well clinically. Additional etching is required to improve retention of cervical restorations that are used with self-etch adhesive.