IADR Abstract Archives
Clinical Evaluation of Universal Bonding Agents: 3 Years Result
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-year adhesive performance of class II restorations made using six different universal bonding systems in patients treated at Selcuk University Faculty of Dentistry Restorative Dentistry Clinic.
Methods: In this study, restorations made with routinely used universal bonding agents (G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Japan)(15), Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar, Liechtenstein)(15), Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray, Japan)(21), All-Bond Universal (BISCO, USA)(17), Prime&Bond Universal (Dentsply, Sirona)(23), Nova Compo B Plus+ (Imicryl, Turkey)(16)) in patients aged 18-25 years who applied to our clinic due to class II caries were evaluated. While evaluating the restorations, an adhesive success table was created based on the Modified USPHS Criteria (marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, color change, marginal integrity, anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity).
Results: According to the findings obtained from the restorations evaluated at the end of 3 years, postoperative sensitivity; Charie (C) score was recorded according to Modified USPHS criteria in a single filling using G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Likewise, according to the secondary caries evaluations, a C score was observed in both G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Prime&Bond Universal (Dentspy, Sirona) fillings. For retention; the only restoration in the Clearfil Universal Bond Group was determined as C. When other values were examined; restorations remained within acceptable limits with Alpha (A) and Bravo(B) scores.
Conclusions: When the 3-year clinical performance of 107 restorations made with universal bonding agents was evaluated, 3 restorations were unsuccessful and a success rate of 97.2% was found. This success rate can be explained by the ionic binding of 10-MDP (methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate) in new generation universal bonding agents to the calcium in the dentin(hydroxyapatite), through the hydrophilic group included in the molecule with a micromechanical bond.
Methods: In this study, restorations made with routinely used universal bonding agents (G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Japan)(15), Tetric N-Bond Universal (Ivoclar, Liechtenstein)(15), Clearfil Universal Bond (Kuraray, Japan)(21), All-Bond Universal (BISCO, USA)(17), Prime&Bond Universal (Dentsply, Sirona)(23), Nova Compo B Plus+ (Imicryl, Turkey)(16)) in patients aged 18-25 years who applied to our clinic due to class II caries were evaluated. While evaluating the restorations, an adhesive success table was created based on the Modified USPHS Criteria (marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, surface texture, color change, marginal integrity, anatomical form and postoperative sensitivity).
Results: According to the findings obtained from the restorations evaluated at the end of 3 years, postoperative sensitivity; Charie (C) score was recorded according to Modified USPHS criteria in a single filling using G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan). Likewise, according to the secondary caries evaluations, a C score was observed in both G-Premio Bond (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Prime&Bond Universal (Dentspy, Sirona) fillings. For retention; the only restoration in the Clearfil Universal Bond Group was determined as C. When other values were examined; restorations remained within acceptable limits with Alpha (A) and Bravo(B) scores.
Conclusions: When the 3-year clinical performance of 107 restorations made with universal bonding agents was evaluated, 3 restorations were unsuccessful and a success rate of 97.2% was found. This success rate can be explained by the ionic binding of 10-MDP (methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate) in new generation universal bonding agents to the calcium in the dentin(hydroxyapatite), through the hydrophilic group included in the molecule with a micromechanical bond.