Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of an additional bonding resin on the 5-year performance of a universal adhesive: a randomized clinical trial

  • Research
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of the application of an additional hydrophobic bonding resin on the clinical performance of a universal adhesive applied in etch-and-rinse (ER) or self-etch adhesive (SE) strategy in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) after 5 years.

Materials and methods

Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (3M Oral Care) was applied in 134 NCCLs of 39 subjects using different adhesion approaches: 3-step ER (3-ER), 2-step ER (2-ER), 2-step SE (2-SE), and 1-step SE (1-SE). Enamel and dentin were acid etched prior to application of the universal adhesive for the 3-ER and 2-ER groups. An extra layer of a hydrophobic bonding resin was applied for groups 3-ER and 2-SE. All lesions were restored with Filtek Supreme XTE resin composite (3M Oral Care). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 5 years using the modified USPHS criteria. Mann–Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests were performed, and the survival rates (retention/fracture) were analyzed using Kaplan–Meier and log-rank tests (p < 0.05).

Results

The recall rate was 66.7% at 5 years. The cumulative survival rate was 96.9% for 3-ER, 96.8% for 2-ER, 71.4% for 2-SE, and 81.3% for 1-SE strategies. The log-rank test was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Retention rates were 100% for both ER groups, 75% for 2-SE and 81.3% for 1-SE. At 5 years, 2- and 1-SE approaches showed similar retention rates, but lower than those for 3- and 2-ER. A significant decrease in retention rate was detected for 2-SE (p = 0.007) and 1-SE (p = 0.014) groups between baseline and 5 years. All groups, except 2-ER, showed an increase in marginal discoloration. For this parameter, significant differences were detected between 2-ER and 1-SE (p = 0.004).

Conclusions

The addition of a hydrophobic bonding resin to the recommended application sequence of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive did not improve its clinical performance in NCCLs after 5 years. Higher retention rates were measured when this adhesive was applied in ER mode.

Trial registration

This manuscript is a 5-year follow-up of a randomized clinical trial that started in 2012 when there was no strong recommendation for registration in clinicaltrials.gov. The results after 36 months of clinical service were previously published in this journal.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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  Google Scholar 

  2. 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  Google Scholar 

  3. Perdigão J (2020) Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion - not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 56:190–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF (2015) Bond strength of universal adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 43:765–776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M (2020) From Buonocore’s pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent 22:7–34. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43994

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Nagaoka N, Hayakawa S, Okihara T, De Munck J, Maruo Y, Nishigawa G, Minagi S, Osaka A, Van Meerbeek B (2013) Adhesive interfacial interaction affected by different carbon-chain monomers. Dent Mater 29:888–897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.05.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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  Google Scholar 

  8. Chen H, Feng S, Jin Y, Hou Y, Zhu S (2022) Comparison of bond strength of universal adhesives using different etching modes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater J 41:1–10. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2021-111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Josic U, Maravic T, Mazzitelli C, Radovic I, Jacimovic J, Del Bianco F, Florenzano F, Breschi L, Mazzoni A (2021) Is clinical behavior of composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions influenced by the application mode of universal adhesives? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 37:e503–e521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cuevas-Suárez CE, da Rosa WLO, Lund RG, da Silva AF, Piva E (2019) Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent 21:7–26. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a41975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sezinando A, Perdigão J, Ceballos L (2017) Long-term in vitro adhesion of polyalkenoate-based adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent 19:305–316. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a38895

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sezinando A, Serrano ML, Pérez VM, Muñoz RA, Ceballos L, Perdigão J (2016) Chemical adhesion of polyalkenoate-based adhesives to hydroxyapatite. J Adhes Dent 18:257–265. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a36222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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 Investig 23:1443–1452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2571-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A (2016) Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 53:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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  Google Scholar 

  16. 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  Google Scholar 

  17. 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  Google Scholar 

  18. 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 Investig 24:765–776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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 

  20. Chasqueira AF, Arantes-Oliveira S, Portugal J (2020) Bonding performance of simplified dental adhesives with three application protocols: an 18-month in vitro study. J Adhes Dent 22:255–264. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Landuyt KL, Snauwaert J, Peumans M, De Munck J, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2008) The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 24:1412–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.02.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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  Google Scholar 

  23. 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 24:90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez I, Szesz AL, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH, Perdigão J (2014) Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the bonding efficacy of three universal adhesives. J Dent 42:595–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.01.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reis A, Albuquerque M, Pegoraro M, Mattei G, Bauer JR, Grande RH, Klein-Junior CA, Baumhardt-Neto R, Loguercio AD (2008) Can the durability of one-step self-etch adhesives be improved by double application or by an extra layer of hydrophobic resin? J Dent 36:309–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.01.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Ermis RB, Ugurlu M, Ahmed MH, Van Meerbeek B (2019) Universal adhesives benefit from an extra hydrophobic adhesive layer when light cured beforehand. J Adhes Dent 21:179–188. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a42344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez I, Muñoz MA, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J (2015) Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the immediate and 6-month dentin bonding of three universal adhesives. Dent Mater 31:e236–e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perdigão J, Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez IV, Staichak R, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2014) Immediate adhesive properties to dentin and enamel of a universal adhesive associated with a hydrophobic resin coat. Oper Dent 39:489–499. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-203-LR

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ahmed MH, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Yoshihara K, Van Meerbeek B (2019) Do universal adhesives benefit from an extra bonding layer? J Adhes Dent 21:117–132. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a42304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sartori N, Peruchi LD, Guimarães JC, Silva SB, Monteiro S Jr, Baratieri LN, Belli R (2013) Clinical effectiveness of a hydrophobic coating used in conjunction with a one-step self-etch adhesive: an 18-month evaluation. Oper Dent 38:249–257. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-014-C

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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  Google Scholar 

  33. Hardan L, Bourgi R, Kharouf N, Mancino D, Zarow M, Jakubowicz N, Haikel Y, Cuevas-Suárez CE (2021) Bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Polymers (Basel) 13:814. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13050814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ahmed MH, Yao C, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B (2020) Extra bonding layer compensates universal adhesive’s thin film thickness. J Adhes Dent 22:483–501. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a45179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Albuquerque M, Pegoraro M, Mattei G, Reis A, Loguercio AD (2008) Effect of double-application or the application of a hydrophobic layer for improved efficacy of one-step self-etch systems in enamel and dentin. Oper Dent 33:564–570. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Yoshida Y, Yoshihara K, Hayakawa S, Nagaoka N, Okihara T, Matsumoto T, Minagi S, Osaka A, Van Landuyt K, Van Meerbeek B (2012) HEMA inhibits interfacial nano-layering of the functional monomer MDP. J Dent Res 91:1060–1065. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034512460396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcìa-Godoy F, Yiu CK (2004) Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent 17:315–322

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kawazu M, Takamizawa T, Hirokane E, Tsujimoto A, Tamura T, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA, Miyazaki M (2020) Comparison of dentin bond durability of a universal adhesive and two etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig 24:2889–2897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03153-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA (2009) The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 25:1459–1467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.07.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Josic U, Mazzitelli C, Maravic T, Radovic I, Jacimovic J, Mancuso E, Florenzano F, Breschi L, Mazzoni A (2022) The influence of selective enamel etch and self-etch mode of universal adhesives’ application on clinical behavior of composite restorations placed on non-carious cervical lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 38:472–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2022.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosà M, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, Pashley DH, Tay F, Breschi L (2014) Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 42:603–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2013.12.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Tay FR, Pashley DH (2004) Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent 32:173–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2003.10.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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  Google Scholar 

  44. Dreweck FDS, Burey A, de Oliveira DM, Loguercio AD, Reis A (2021) Adhesive strategies in cervical lesions: systematic review and a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Clin Oral Investig 25:2495–2510. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03844-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IDIBO Research Group, Area of Stomatology, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain

    M. Victoria Fuentes, Bruno Baracco, Isabel Giráldez & Laura Ceballos

  2. Department of Restorative Sciences, University of Minnesota School of Dentistry, 8-450 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware St. SE, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Jorge Perdigão

Authors
  1. M. Victoria Fuentes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jorge Perdigão
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bruno Baracco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Isabel Giráldez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Laura Ceballos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: J. P. and L. C.; methodology: V. F., B. B., I. G., L. C.; formal analysis and investigation: V. F., L. C., B. B., I. G.; writing—original draft preparation: V. F.; writing—original draft review and editing: L. C. and J. P.; supervision: V. F., L. C. All authors approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Perdigão.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Rey Juan Carlos University in Madrid, and the procedures involving human participants were in accordance with Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to starting the treatment.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests at the time this study was initiated. The author J. P. has recently become a PI of a clinical trial sponsored by 3M Oral Care.

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

Fuentes, M.V., Perdigão, J., Baracco, B. et al. Effect of an additional bonding resin on the 5-year performance of a universal adhesive: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest 27, 837–848 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04613-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04613-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation