Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 1443–1452 | Cite as

An 18-month clinical evaluation of three different universal adhesives used with a universal flowable composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions

  • Fatma Dilsad OzEmail author
  • Zeynep Bilge Kutuk
  • Canan Ozturk
  • Reza Soleimani
  • Sevil Gurgan
Original Article



The aim of this randomized, controlled prospective clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the performances of three different universal adhesives using a flowable universal composite resin in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over an 18-month period.

Materials and methods

Eighteen participants recieved 99 restorations from a single operator. NCCLs were divided into three groups according to adhesive systems used: Clearfil Universal Bond (CU), iBOND Universal (IU), and G-Premio Bond (GP). No enamel bevel was placed and no mechanical retention was created for the NCCLs. Prior to adhesive procedures, selective etching was performed with 37% phosphoric acid. Adhesive systems were applied following manufacturers’ instructions and the lesions were restored with a flowable composite resin (G-ænial Universal Flo). Restorations were finished and polished immediately after placement and scored with regard to retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match using modified USPHS criteria after a week (baseline) and 6, 12, and 18 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests.


The 18-month recall rate was 88.8% and retention rates for CU, IU, and GP were 100%, 96.8%, and 100%, respectively. No restorations exhibited post-operative sensitivity and secondary caries. After 18 months, CU, IU, and GP groups showed similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (CU 93.1%, IU 90%, GP 81.8%) and marginal discoloration (CU 100%, IU 90%, GP 87.9%). A total of ten (CU 2, IU 3, GP 5) restorations exhibited bravo scores for surface texture and three (CU 2, GP 1) restorations showed bravo score for color match. No statistical differences were found among the tested adhesives for any criteria evaluated (p > 0.05).


The three adhesive systems demonstrated similar performances during the 18-month follow-up in the restoration of NCCLs.

Clinical relevance

Universal adhesives could be used successfully in the restoration of NCCLs.


Universal adhesive Non-carious cervical lesion Selective etching 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Buoncore MG (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34(6):849–853. Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bedran-Russo A, Leme-Kraus AA, Vidal CMP, Teixeira EC (2017) An overview of dental adhesive systems and the dynamic tooth-adhesive interface. Dent Clin N Am 61(4):713–731. Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Nakaayashi N, Pashley DH (1998) Hybridization of dental hard tissues quintessence publishing. Chicago:65–67Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G (2003) Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 28(3):215–235Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL (2011) State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 27(1):17–28. Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano DE (2008) Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 24(1):90–101. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO (2015) Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 43(10):1229–1234. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, Reis A (2007) A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 138(4):507–514. Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Can Say E, Ozel E, Yurdaguven H, Soyman M (2014) Three-year clinical evaluation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching in non-carious cervical sclerotic lesions. Clin Oral Investig 18(5):1427–1433. Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Can Say E, Yurdaguven H, Ozel E, Soyman M (2014) A randomized five-year clinical study of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater J 33(6):757–763. Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ozel E, Say EC, Yurdaguven H, Soyman M (2010) One-year clinical evaluation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without additional enamel etching technique in cervical lesions. Aust Dent J 55(2):156–161. Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Peumans M (2005) A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 21(4):375–383. Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, Van Meerbeek B (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84(2):118–132. Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alex G (2015) Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent 36(1):15–26Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigao J (2013) A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 25(1):55–69. Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 39(2):113–127. Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO (1994) Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 22(4):195–207Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santos MJ, Ari N, Steele S, Costella J, Banting D (2014) Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions--a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 18(5):1369–1381. Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tyas MJ (1995) The class V lesion--aetiology and restoration. Aust Dent J 40(3):167–170. Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Osborne-Smith KL, Burke FJ, Wilson NH (1999) The aetiology of the non-carious cervical lesion. Int Dent J 49(3):139–143. Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B (2014) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 30(10):1089–1103. Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Aw TC, Lepe X, Johnson GH, Mancl LA (2005) A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc 136(3):311–322. Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43(9):1083–1092. Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Dalton Bittencourt D, Ezecelevski IG, Reis A, Van Dijken JW, Loguercio AD (2005) An 18-months’ evaluation of self-etch and etch & rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Acta Odontol Scand 63(3):173–178. Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Perdigao J, Dutra-Correa M, Saraceni CH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH, Queiroz CS (2012) Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results. Oper Dent 37(1):3–11. Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig 9(4):215–232. Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Reis A, Loguercio AD (2009) A 36-month clinical evaluation of ethanol/water and acetone-based etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 34(4):384–391. Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burrow MF (2011) Clinical evaluation of non-carious cervical lesion restorations using HEMA-free adhesive: three-year results a. Aust Dent J 56(4):401–405. Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Zander-Grande C, Amaral RC, Loguercio AD, Barroso LP, Reis A (2014) Clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesives applied actively in cervical lesions: 24-month clinical trial. Oper Dent 39(3):228–238. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS (2014) Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent 16(3):243–250. Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Van Landuyt KL, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Peumans M, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2006) Bond strength of a mild self-etch adhesive with and without prior acid-etching. J Dent 34(1):77–85. Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Van Meerbeek B (2015) Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 31(3):308–314. Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Torii Y, Ogawa T, Osaka A, Meerbeek BV (2012) Self-assembled nano-layering at the adhesive interface. J Dent Res 91(4):376–381. Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zhang Z, Wang X, Zhang L, Liang B, Tang T, Fu B, Hannig M (2013) The contribution of chemical bonding to the short- and long-term enamel bond strengths. Dent Mater 29(7):103–112. Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Barkmeier WW, Erickson RL, Kimmes NS, Latta MA, Wilwerding TM (2009) Effect of enamel etching time on roughness and bond strength. Oper Dent 34(2):217–222. Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moura SK, Pelizzaro A, Dal Bianco K, de Goes MF, Loguercio AD, Reis A, Grande RH (2006) Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent 8(2):75–83Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Soderholm KJ, Ottenga M, Nimmo S (2013) Four-year clinical evaluation of two self-etching dentin adhesives of different pH values used to restore non-retentive cervical lesions. Am J Dent 26(1):28–32Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chiba A, Zhou J, Nakajima M, Tan J, Tagami J, Scheffel DL, Hebling J, Agee KA, Breschi L, Gregoire G, Jang SS, Tay FR, Pashley DH (2016) The effects of ethanol on the size-exclusion characteristics of type I dentin collagen to adhesive resin monomers. Acta Biomater 33:235–241. Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Peumans M, Yoshida Y, Poitevin A, Coutinho E, Suzuki K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28(26):3757–3785. Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bail M, Malacarne-Zanon J, Silva SM, Anauate-Netto A, Nascimento FD, Amore R, Lewgoy H, Pashley DH, Carrilho MR (2012) Effect of air-drying on the solvent evaporation, degree of conversion and water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive models. J Mater Sci Mater Med 23(3):629–638. Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Perdigao J, Frankenberger R (2001) Effect of solvent and rewetting time on dentin adhesion. Quintessence Int 32(5):385–390Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Reis A, Loguercio AD, Carvalho RM, Grande RH (2004) Durability of resin dentin interfaces: effects of surface moisture and adhesive solvent component. Dent Mater 20(7):669–676. Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Reis AF, Oliveira MT, Giannini M, De Goes MF, Rueggeberg FA (2003) The effect of organic solvents on one-bottle adhesives’ bond strength to enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 28(6):700–706Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Cho BH, Dickens SH (2004) Effects of the acetone content of single solution dentin bonding agents on the adhesive layer thickness and the microtensile bond strength. Dent Mater 20(2):107–115. Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rueggeberg FA, Margeson DH (1990) The effect of oxygen inhibition on an unfilled/filled composite system. J Dent Res 69(10):1652–1658. Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Tay FR, Agee KA, Lee KW (2002) Solvation of dried dentin matrix by water and other polar solvents. Am J Dent 15(2):97–102Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, de Carvalho RM, da Julio SM, Grande RH (2003) Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent 5(3):183–192Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2007) Clinical evaluation of three adhesive systems for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 32(1):11–15. Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ, Mercante DE, Davidson JM (2005) Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as class V filling materials. Oper Dent 30(3):275–281Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Usha C, Ramarao S, John BM, Rajesh P, Swatha S (2017) Evaluation of the shear bond strength of composite resin to wet and dry enamel using dentin bonding agents containing various solvents. J Clin Diagn Res 11(1):41–44. Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Malacarne J, Carvalho RM, de Goes MF, Svizero N, Pashley DH, Tay FR, Yiu CK, Carrilho MR (2006) Water sorption/solubility of dental adhesive resins. Dent Mater 22(10):973–980. Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Dhanpal P, Yiu CK, King NM, Tay FR, Hiraishi N (2009) Effect of temperature on water sorption and solubility of dental adhesive resins. J Dent 37(2):122–132. Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Burrow MF, Tyas MJ (2012) Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions--results at 3 years. Clin Oral Investig 16(4):1089–1094. Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Celik EU, Aka B, Yilmaz F (2015) Six-month clinical evaluation of a self-adhesive flowable composite in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 17(4):361–368. Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Cieplik F, Scholz KJ, Tabenski I, May S, Hiller KA, Schmalz G, Buchalla W, Federlin M (2017) Flowable composites for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: results after five years. Dent Mater 33(12):428–437. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of DentistryHacettepe UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Denizli Dental HospitalDenizliTurkey

Personalised recommendations