IADR Abstract Archives
CLINICAL EVALUATION OF CLASS I RESTORATIONS WITH THREE DIFFERENT ADHESIVE STRATEGIES
Objectives: The aim of the present double-blinded clinical trial was to evaluate the 12-month clinical performance of dentin bonding agents with three different adhesive strategies in posterior Class I composite restorations.
Methods: 188 restorations in forty three patients were assigned to three groups regarding the adhesive strategies used; three-step total etch system; Optibond FL (OBF), two-step self-etching system; Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) and one-step self-etching system; iBond (IB) Following bonding agents application occlusal restorations were restored incrementally with composite resin materials of each manufacturer’s according to the recommended instructrions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 month and at 12 months, using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05).
Results: No loss of restorations were recorded during 12 months. Marginal discoloration was detected and scored bravo in %45 of the teeth restored with iBond whereas 4% and 3% with matched bravo for PBL and OPL respectively (p>0.05). 85% of the teeth restored with CPB and 84 % with OBF were rated as alpha regarding the marginal adaptation whereas iBond resulted in a significantly higher incidence of bravo scores with 33% and 2 restorations with charlie scores using the USPHS criteria.
Conclusions: Through the evaluation period, the clinical retention of the total-etch and self-etch dentin bonding systems applied in Class I posterior restorations was fully successful regardless of their different adhesive strategies.Within the limitation of the present study ,total-etch and two-step self-etch dentin bonding systems exhibited higher performance regarding the marginal adaptation and coloration which need to be evaluated for a longer period of clinical performance.
Methods: 188 restorations in forty three patients were assigned to three groups regarding the adhesive strategies used; three-step total etch system; Optibond FL (OBF), two-step self-etching system; Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) and one-step self-etching system; iBond (IB) Following bonding agents application occlusal restorations were restored incrementally with composite resin materials of each manufacturer’s according to the recommended instructrions. The restorations were evaluated at baseline, 6 month and at 12 months, using United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Statistical analyses were performed using Friedman repeated-measures analysis of variance by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (α=0.05).
Results: No loss of restorations were recorded during 12 months. Marginal discoloration was detected and scored bravo in %45 of the teeth restored with iBond whereas 4% and 3% with matched bravo for PBL and OPL respectively (p>0.05). 85% of the teeth restored with CPB and 84 % with OBF were rated as alpha regarding the marginal adaptation whereas iBond resulted in a significantly higher incidence of bravo scores with 33% and 2 restorations with charlie scores using the USPHS criteria.
Conclusions: Through the evaluation period, the clinical retention of the total-etch and self-etch dentin bonding systems applied in Class I posterior restorations was fully successful regardless of their different adhesive strategies.Within the limitation of the present study ,total-etch and two-step self-etch dentin bonding systems exhibited higher performance regarding the marginal adaptation and coloration which need to be evaluated for a longer period of clinical performance.