Randomized clinical trial of different adhesion strategies in noncarious cervical lesion restorations: 1-year follow-up

• Autor(a) principal: Shinohara, Mirela Sanae [UNESP]
• Data de Publicação: 2020
• Outros Autores: de Andrade Carvalho, Paulo Roberto Marão [UNESP], Marcon, Laercio Neves [UNESP], Gonçalves, Diego Felipe Mardegan [UNESP], de Souza e Silva Ramos, Fernanda [UNESP], Fagundes, Ticiane Cestari [UNESP]
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Repositório Institucional da UNESP
• Texto Completo: http://dx.doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a44367; http://hdl.handle.net/11449/201720
• topic: Acid etching; Adhesive system; Dentin; Randomized controlled clinical trial; Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement

Objectives: The purpose of the present prospective and ran domized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) restored with different adhesion strategies on the dental substrate. Method and materials: An adhesive restorative system (Single Bond Universal/ Z350XT) with and without selective enamel conditioning was evaluated, as well as a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer), with and without pretreatment with ethylenedi aminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Two operators placed a total of 200 restorations in 50 patients (four restorations per patient). Data from decayed, missing, and filled teeth (DMFT), visible plaque, and gingival bleeding were collected prior to the res torations and at each evaluation time. All restorations were evaluated using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) evaluation system at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months. Data were analyzed by the Friedman, chi-square, Cochran, Wilcoxon, and multiple logistic regression analysis tests (P ≤ .05). Results: There was a gradual and significant in crease in DMFT with a difference among the three evaluations (P ≤ .001). There was no difference for the Visible Plaque Index over time (P = .28); however, there was a significant reduction in the Gingival Bleeding Index between the baseline and the other evaluations (P ≤ .001). There was no statistically signifi cant difference among groups and periods of evaluations (P > .05). Regarding logistic regression, the model as a whole was statistically significant (P = .034). Conclusion: The four different adhesion strategies in the NCCL restorations pre sented similar clinical performance after 1 year of follow-up.