Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Thirty-six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with an MDP-free universal adhesive system using different adhesive protocols: a randomized clinical trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of different application strategies on the clinical behavior of an MDP-free universal adhesive placed in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) over the course of 36 months.

Materials and methods

Thirty-one patients participated in this study (N = 31). One hundred twenty-four restorations were assigned to four groups: We used the self-etch strategy on groups with (SE-et) and without (SET) selective enamel etching, and the etch-and-rinse strategy on groups with dry (ER-D) and moist (ER-M) dentin. After applying the MDP-free universal adhesive (Xeno Select universal adhesive, Dentsply Sirona), cavities were filled using EvoluX composite resin (Dentsply Sirona). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 36 months according to World Dental Federation (FDI) and US Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. Friedman’s repeated-measures analysis of variance rank (α = 0.05) was used for statistical analysis.

Results

We evaluated the 31 patients after 36 months. Forty-two restorations were lost (ER-D = 5, ER-M = 7, SE-et = 14, SET = 16). The 36-month retention/fracture rates (95% confidence interval) were 83.9% for ER-D, 77.4% for ER-M, 54.9% for SE-et, and 48.4% for SET. ER strategy showed better retention rate than SE strategy (p < 0.05). Thirty-four restorations (ER-D = 6, ER-M = 10, SE-et = 10, SET = 8) showed marginal staining per FDI criteria and 15 restorations (ER-D = 1, ER-M = 2, SE-et = 6, SET = 6) showed marginal staining per USPHS criteria. No restorations showed postoperative sensitivity or recurrence of caries.

Conclusion

The retention rate of Xeno Select universal adhesive was poor, mainly in the self-etch strategy.

Trial registration

REBEC clinical registry under protocol RBR-4wh4sh.

Clinical relevance

MDP-free universal adhesive behavior depends on the bonding strategy used.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Teixeira DNR, Thomas RZ, Soares PV, Cune MS, Gresnigt MMM, Slot DE (2020) Prevalence of noncarious cervical lesions among adults: a systematic review. J Dent 95:103285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103285

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davari A, Ataei E, Assarzadeh H (2013) Dentin hypersensitivity: etiology, diagnosis and treatment; a literature review. J Dent (Shiraz) 14:136–145

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J (2012) Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent 40:475–484. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.02.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC (2012) Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent 25:153–158

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Alex G (2015) Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compendium of continuing education in dentistry 36:15–26; quiz 28, 40.

  6. Muñoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH (2013) Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent 41:404–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Perdigão J, Loguercio AD (2014) Universal or multi-mode adhesives: why and how? J Adhes Dent 16:193–194. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a31871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, Inoue S, Tagawa Y, Suzuki K, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B (2004) Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res 83:454–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408300604

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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 91:376–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512437375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Jacker-Guhr S, Sander J, Luehrs AK (2019) How “universal” is adhesion? Shear bond strength of multi-mode adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent 21:87–95. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a41974

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Nagarkar S, Theis-Mahon N, Perdigão J (2019) Universal dental adhesives: current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 107:2121–2131. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.b.34305

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Siqueira FSF, Cardenas AM, Ocampo JB, Hass V, Bandeca MC, Gomes JC, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2018) Bonding performance of universal adhesives to eroded dentin. J Adhes Dent 20:121–132. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a40300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, Zhang ZY, Zhou LQ, Jiao K, Chen JH, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2015) Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine–old wine in new bottles? J Dent 43:525–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.03.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kaczor K, Gerula-Szymańska A, Smektała T, Safranow K, Lewusz K, Nowicka A (2018) Effects of different etching modes on the nanoleakage of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Esthet Restor Dent 30:287–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12375

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Mahn E (2015) Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results - a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 31:423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.01.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Mine A, Van Ende A, Neves A, De Munck J (2010) Relationship between bond-strength tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 26:e100–e121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 43:1229–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, Reis A, Muñoz MA (2018) Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent 69:60–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.011

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Matos TP, Gutiérrez MF, Hanzen TA, Malaquias P, de Paula AM, de Souza JJ, Hass V, Fernández E, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2019) 18-month clinical evaluation of a copper-containing universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a double-blind, randomized controlled trial. J Dent 90:103219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103219

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J (2013) A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent 25:55–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Oz FD, Ergin E, Canatan S (2019) Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etch-and-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL - a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci 27:e20180358. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0358

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Oz FD, Kutuk ZB, Ozturk C, Soleimani R, Gurgan S (2019) 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. Clin Oral Invest 23:1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Perdigão 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 39:113–127. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-045-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ruschel VC, Shibata S, Stolf SC, Chung Y, Baratieri LN, Heymann HO, Walter R (2018) Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 43:241–249. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-320-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Zanatta RF, Silva TM, Esper M, Bresciani E, Gonçalves S, Caneppele T (2019) Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 44:476–487. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-049-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. de Paris MT, Perdigão J, de Paula E, Coppla F, Hass V, Scheffer RF, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2020) Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: a randomized double-blind trial. Dent Mater 36:1474–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Atalay C, Ozgunaltay G, Yazici AR (2020) Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive. Clin Oral Invest 24:1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03052-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Perdigão J, Ceballos L, Giráldez I, Baracco B, Fuentes MV (2020) Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive-a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 24:765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J (2015) A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D (2011) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 9:672–677. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2011.09.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Heintze SD, Cavalleri A (2010) Retention loss of class v restorations after artificial aging. J Adhes Dent 12:443–449. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a18240

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sugizaki J, Morigami M, Uno S, Yamada T (2007) Clinical evaluation and interfacial morphology observation of Xeno III self-etching resin bonding and restorative system. Dent Mater J 26:602–607. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. van Dijken JW, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg K, Sörensson E (2007) Clinical bonding of a single-step self-etching adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 2):241–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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 39:228–238. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-286-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Pocock S (1983) Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach. Wiley, New Jersey, USA

    Google Scholar 

  36. Loguercio AD, Reis A, Barbosa AN, Roulet JF (2003) Five-year double-blind randomized clinical evaluation of a resin-modified glass ionomer and a polyacid-modified resin in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 5:323–332

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J, Heymann HO, Wilder AD Jr, Bayne SC, May KN Jr, Sturdevant JR, Roberson TM (2001) Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of a filled and unfilled dentin adhesive. J Dent 29:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00050-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cvar JF, Ryge G (2005) Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Invest 9:215–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller KA, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD (2010) FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Invest 14:349–366. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 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 63:173–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350510019874

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Saraceni CH, Ciaramicoli MT, Kiyan VH, Queiroz CS (2012) Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results. Oper Dent 37:3–11. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-222-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ruschel VC, Stolf SC, Shibata S, Chung Y, Boushell LW, Baratieri LN, Walter R (2019) Three-year clinical evaluation of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Am J Dent 32:223–228

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 27:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lopes LS, Calazans FS, Hidalgo R, Buitrago LL, Gutierrez F, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Barceleiro MO (2016) Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent 41:465–480. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-309-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. 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 Dental materials 30:1089–1103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. De Munck J, Vargas M, Iracki J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) One-day bonding effectiveness of new self-etch adhesives to bur-cut enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 30:39–49

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Zecin-Deren A, Sokolowski J, Szczesio-Wlodarczyk A, Piwonski I, Lukomska-Szymanska M and Lapinska B (2019) Multi-layer application of self-etch and universal adhesives and the effect on dentin bond strength. Molecules 24 https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules24020345

  48. Carvalho RM, Chersoni S, Frankenberger R, Pashley DH, Prati C, Tay FR (2005) A challenge to the conventional wisdom that simultaneous etching and resin infiltration always occurs in self-etch adhesives. Biomaterials 26:1035–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2004.04.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang Y, Spencer P (2005) Continuing etching of an all-in-one adhesive in wet dentin tubules. J Dent Res 84:350–354. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400411

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Van Loghum BS (2014) Xeno Select fact file Tandartspraktijk 35(5):50–51

    Google Scholar 

  51. Lattaa MA (2007) Shear bond strength and physicochemical interactions of XP bond. J Adhes Dent 9(Suppl 2):245–248

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Maeda T, Yamaguchi K, Takamizawa T, Rikuta A, Tsubota K, Ando S, Miyazaki M (2008) pH changes of self-etching primers mixed with powdered dentine. J Dent 36:606–610. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.04.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Zhou L, Wang Y, Yang H, Guo J, Tay FR, Huang C (2015) Effect of chemical interaction on the bonding strengths of self-etching adhesives to deproteinised dentine. J Dent 43:973–980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.05.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Taschner M, Nato F, Mazzoni A, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Di Lenarda R, Petschelt A, Breschi L (2010) Role of preliminary etching for one-step self-etch adhesives. Eur J Oral Sci 118:517–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2010.00769.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Moszner N, Salz U, Zimmermann J (2005) Chemical aspects of self-etching enamel-dentin adhesives: a systematic review. Dent Mater 21:895–910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.05.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. 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 28:3757–3785. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.04.044

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. de Albuquerque EG, Warol F, Calazans FS, Poubel LA, Marins SS, Matos T, de Souza JJ, Reis A, de Oliveira BM, Loguercio AD (2020) A new dual-cure universal simplified adhesive: 18-month randomized multicenter clinical trial. Oper Dent 45:E255-e270. https://doi.org/10.2341/19-144-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Marquillier T, Doméjean S, Le Clerc J, Chemla F, Gritsch K, Maurin JC, Millet P, Pérard M, Grosgogeat B, Dursun E (2018) The use of FDI criteria in clinical trials on direct dental restorations: a scoping review. J Dent 68:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.10.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Reis A, Carrilho M, Breschi L, Loguercio AD (2013) Overview of clinical alternatives to minimize the degradation of the resin-dentin bonds. Oper Dent 38:E1-e25. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-258-LIT

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Perdigao J, Ceballos L, Giraldez I, Baracco B, Fuentes MV (2019) Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive-a randomized clinical trial. Clinical oral investigation 24:765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Reis A, Leite TM, Matte K, Michels R, Amaral RC (2009) Geraldeli S and Loguercio AD (2009) Improving clinical retention of one-step self-etching adhesive systems with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer. Journal of American dental association 140:877–885. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Loguercio AD, Reis A (2008) Application of a dental adhesive using the self-etch and etch-and-rinse approaches: an 18-month clinical evaluation. Journal of American dental association 139:53–61. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2008.0021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Luque-Martinez I, Muñoz MA, Mena-Serrano A, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2015) Effect of EDTA conditioning on cervical restorations bonded with a self-etch adhesive: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 43:1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Hass V, Matos TP, Parreiras SO, Szesz AL, de Souza JJ, Gutiérrez MF, Reis A and Loguercio AD (2021) An 18-month clinical evaluation of prolonged polymerization of a universal adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions: a double-blind randomized clinical trial. Dental materials 23:S0109–5641(21)00306–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.10.012.

  65. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO, Reis A (2015) Influence of isolation method of the operative field on gingival damage, patients’ preference, and restoration retention in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent 40:581–593. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-089-c

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U, Benetti A (2019) A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials 35:335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027

Download references

Funding

This study was partially supported by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) under grants 303332/2017-4 and 308286/2019-7.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Nova Friburgo, Brazil

    Marcos O. Barceleiro, Chane Tardem & Fernanda S. Calazans

  2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

    Leticia S. Lopes

  3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Tuiuti University of Paraná, Curitiba, Brazil

    Thalita P. Matos

  4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Brazil

    Alessandra Reis, Abraham Lincoln Calixto & Alessandro D. Loguercio

Authors
  1. Marcos O. Barceleiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leticia S. Lopes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chane Tardem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fernanda S. Calazans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Thalita P. Matos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Alessandra Reis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Abraham Lincoln Calixto
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Alessandro D. Loguercio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Marcos O. Barceleiro: clinical evaluator, paper revisor, and study director. Leticia S. Lopes: performed restorative procedures. Chane Tardem: dental assistant, clinical evaluator, and paper writer. Fernanda S. Calazans: performed restorative procedures. Thalita P. Matos: dental assistant and paper writer. Alessandra Reis and Abraham Lincoln Calixto: paper revisor. Alessandro D. Loguercio: clinical evaluator, paper revisor, and study director.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro D. Loguercio.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Fluminense Federal University ethics committee (protocol 800.273/14). All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to starting the treatment.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barceleiro, M.O., Lopes, L.S., Tardem, C. et al. Thirty-six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with an MDP-free universal adhesive system using different adhesive protocols: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 26, 4337–4350 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04397-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04397-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation