Prospective clinical evaluation of three different bonding systems in class V resin restorations with or without mechanical retention

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2006;31(4):300-311

Publication date (electronic) : 2006 July 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.300

Kyung-Wook Lee ¹, Sae-Joon Choung ¹, Young-Chul Han ¹, Ho-Hyun Son ¹^,², Chung-Moon Um ¹^,², Myoung-Hwan Oh ³, Byeong-Hoon Cho ¹^,²

¹Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

²Dental Research Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

³Vericom R&D Center, Anyang, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Byeong-Hoon Cho. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, and Dental Research Institute, Seoul National Univ., 28-2 Yeongun-dong, Chongro-gu, Seoul, Korea 110-749. Tel: +82-2-2072-3514, Fax: +82-2-764-3514, chobh@snu.ac.kr

Received 2006 January 14; Revised 2005 February 17; Accepted 2006 March 24.

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

Notes

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea (Grant No. 03-PJ1-PG1-CH09-0001).

References

1. 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 1999. 2426–30.

2. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 1994. 22195–207.

3. Bader JD, Levitch LC, Shugars DA, Heymann HO, McClure F. How dentists classified and treated non-carious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 1993. 12446–54.

4. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent 2002. 27117–123.

5. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent 1993. 18130–137.

6. Smales RJ, Gerke DC. Clinical evaluation of light-cured anterior resin composites over periods of up to 4 years. Am J Dent 1992. 5208–212.

7. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent 2001. 345–64.

8. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach 2001. ed 2th ed. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing; 396.

9. 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 2001. 3237–245.

10. 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 2003. 16329–334.

11. Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent 2001. 23481–486.

12. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent 1999. 27523–530.

13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002. 30371–382.

14. 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 2005. 32504–510.

15. 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 2003. 3060–67.

16. McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc 1998. 129593–599.

17. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater 1995. 11117–125.

18. 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 2000. 791385–1391.

19. 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 2002. 15274–278.

20. Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N. two-year clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 2002. 14296–302.

21. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 1973. 87369–377.

22. 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 2002. 3083–90.

23. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing performance of two one-step adhesive systems in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent 2004. 6211–219.

24. Yoshida E, Uno S. Voids formation along the bonding interface between a smeared dentin surface and all-in-one adhesives. Dent Mater J 2004. 23643–649.

25. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent 2004. 17315–322.

26. 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 2005. 18135–140.

27. Duke ES, Robbins JW, Snyder DS. Clinical evaluation of a dentinal adhesive system: three-year results. Quintessence Int 1991. 22889–895.

28. Duke ES, Lindemuth J. Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent 1991. 4241–246.

29. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 1992. 5315–317.

30. Tilliss TS, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Dent Hyg 2002. 76296–310.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Cavity preparation of experimental tooth.

Figure 2

Deterioration of the restorations - An example of "marginal discoloration" observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline, (B) 6-month recall.

Figure 3

Scanning electron micrographs of the interface between tooth and restoration - An example of marginal breakdown observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline: continuous margin is observed, (B) 6-month recall: breakdown of incisal margin is observed (arrow), (C) higher magnification of the area pointed by arrow in Figure 3-(B).

Table 1

Design of experimental groups (Number of teeth in each group = 25)

Table 2

Bonding procedures in each group

Table 3

Modified USPHS criteria used for the clinical evaluation

Table 4

Number of teeth in each rating of the modified USPHS criteria

^†These columns present the number of teeth included in each rating for each criterion.

^‡This row presents the ratio of the number of teeth not showing alpha rating to the total number of teeth included in each group.

^*The number of teeth in each group was 25 at baseline. One tooth from group E (Adper prompt without groove) was dropped out at 6-month recall, because its restoration was replaced with a new restoration using SBMP due to persistent hypersensitivity.

Table 5

Frequency of undesirable changes in each criterion between baseline and 6-month recall

^*The other criteria (retention, secondary caries, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity) are not included in this table, because all the teeth were rated alpha in these criteria at 6-month recall.

Table 6

Marginal discoloration & marginal adaptation at 6-month recall