Effect of an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer Application on the Clinical Performance of Class V Resin Composite Restorations: An 18-month Randomized Clinical Trial
This study aimed to evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of two different one-step adhesives that were applied alone or with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer to noncarious cervical lesions. One hundred sixty teeth in 31 patients were included in the study. Each patient received at least four restorations. A 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA)-containing one-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, Kuraray Noritake, Noritake, Japan) and a HEMA-free universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond) were applied to noncarious cervical lesions with or without additional hydrophobic adhesive (Heliobond) randomly. Teeth were restored with a nanohybrid composite. Restorations were evaluated according to FDI criteria at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month recalls. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and the Friedman analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests (α=0.05). At 18 months, recall rates were 100%, and there was no significant difference between four different adhesive applications in terms of any criteria (p>0.05). The cumulative retention rates were 92.5%, 92.5%, 97.5%, and 100% for the restorations with one-step self-etch, one-step self-etch plus hydrophobic adhesive layer, a universal adhesive, and a universal adhesive plus hydrophobic adhesive layer, respectively. An additional hydrophobic adhesive layer was found to have no significant effect on the 18-month clinical performance of two different one-step adhesive systems with and without HEMA.SUMMARY
Objectives:
Methods and Materials:
Results:
Conclusion:
Kaplan-Meier survival analysis by study groups and time periods. Abbreviations: C-BP, Clearfil S3 Bond Plus applied restorations; C-BPH, Clearfil S3 Bond Plus + Heliobond applied restorations; G-PB, G-Premio Bond applied restorations; G-PBH, G-Premio Bond + Heliobond applied restorations.
Contributor Notes