Randomized Clinical Trial of Adhesive Restorations in Non Carious Cervical Lesions

Abstract:

AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of adhesive restorations of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC) compared with of resin composite (RC), and RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite in non carious cervical lesions (NCCL).METHODS: The randomized clinical trial included 45 patients (25-65 year-old), with at least two similar sized NCCL on premolars. After sample size calculation, 220 restorations were placed, according to one of the following groups: (G1) Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Vitremer); (G2) a resin composite and an adhesive layer (Versaflo); (G3) RMGIC liner base laminated with a resin composite (Vitremer and Versaflo). The restorations were clinically followed every 6 months for up to 24 months using the USPHS modified criteria for clinical evaluation. Survival estimates for restoration longevity were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Log-rank test (P< 0.05) was used to compare the differences in the success rate according to the type of the restorative material.RESULTS: At the end of 24 months, 172 restorations were evaluated in 37 patients, with a recall rate of 82.22%. The type of restorative material used did not influence the longevity of the restorations. The survival rates for the follow-up were similar regarding the number of restored surfaces and the tooth (upper or lower premolar). Estimated survival rates of the restorations were 100%, 100%, 98,25% and 90,69% at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months of clinical evaluations, respectively. A statistically significant difference was observed between RMGIC and RC or RMGIC laminated with RC for color match, but no other significant difference was observed among the three types of restorations.CONCLUSIONS: The survival rates were similar for the three types of restorations in NCCL. Different types of materials demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in non-carious cervical lesions.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 695)
• Pages: 3-11
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.695.3
• Online since: May 2016
• Authors: Sanda Mihaela Popescu*, Mihaela Jana Ţuculină, Horia Octavian Manolea, Rodica Mercuţ, Monica Scrieciu
• Keywords: Cement, Composite, Glass-Ionomer, Resin, Restoration

References

[1] A.F.V. Pereira, I.A.V.P. Poiate, E. Poiate Junior, W.G. Miranda Junior, Abfraction lesions reviewed: current concepts, RGO Porto Alegre. 56 (2008) 321-326.

[2] R. Pecie, I. Krejci, F. Garcia-Godoy, T. Bortolotto, Noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) – A clinical concept based on the literature review. Part 2: Restoration, Am J Dent, 24 (2011) 183-192.

[3] E.B. Franco, A.R. Benetti, S.K. Ishikiriama, S.L. Santiago, J.R. Lauris, M.F. Jorge, M.F. Navarro, 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions, Oper Dent. 31 (2006).

DOI: 10.2341/05-87

[4] C. dos Reis Perez, M. Rodrigues Gonzalez, N. Araujo Silva Prado, M. Sorozini Ferreira de Miranda, M. de Andrade Macedo, B. Monteiro Pessoa Fernandes, Restoration of Noncarious Cervical Lesions: When, Why, and How, International Journal of Dentistry, ID 687058 (2012).

DOI: 10.1155/2012/687058

[4] N. Ilie, R. Hickel, Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites, Clin Oral Invest, 13 (2009) 427–38.

DOI: 10.1007/s00784-009-0258-4

[5] H.H. Xu, M.D. Weir, L. Sun, Calcium and Phosphate Ion Releasing Composite: Effect of pH on Release and Mechanical Properties, Dent Mater. 25 (2009) 535-42.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.10.009

[6] B. Yuzugullu, Y. Ciftci, G. Saygili, S. Canay, Diametral tensile compressive strengths of several types of core materials, J Prosthodont, 17 (2008) 102–7.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2007.00269.x

[7] D. Xie, W.A. Brantley, B.M. Culbertson, G. Wang, Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass ionomer cements, Dent Mater. 16 (2000) 129-38.

DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00093-7

[8] S. Preussker, M. Pöschmann, A. Kensche, I. Natusch, R. Koch, W. Klimm, C. Hannig, Three-year prospective clinical performance of a one-step self-etch adhesive and a nanofiller hybrid resin composite in Class V lesions, Am J Dent. 27 (2014) 73-8.

[9] M. Peumans, J. De Munck, K.L. Van Landuyt, P. Kanumilli, Y. Yoshida, S. Inoue, P. Lambrechts, B. Van Meerbeek, Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites, Dent Mater. 23 (2007) 749-754.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.013

[10] S. Kubo, K. Kawasaki, H. Yokota, Y. Hayashi, Five-year clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions, J Dent. 34 (2006) 97-105.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.04.003

[11] M. Peumans, J. De Munck, K. Van Landuyt, P. Lambrechts, B. Van Meerbeek, Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive, J. Adhes. Dent. 9 (2007) 7-10.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.08.190

[12] J.W. van Dijken, K. Sunnegårdh-Grönberg, A. Lindberg, Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 years evaluation, Dent. Mater. 23 (2007) 1101-1107.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.10.005

[13] J.W. van Dijken, U. Pallesen, Long-term dentin retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement in noncarious cervical lesions, Dent. Mater. 24 (2008) 915-922.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.11.008

[14] A.V. Ritter, E.J. Jr. Swift, H.O. Heymann, J.R. Sturdevant, A.D. Jr. Wilder, An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives, J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 140 (2009) 28-37.

DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0015

[15] M. Folwaczny, C. Loher, A. Mehl, K.H. Kunzelmann, R. Hickel, Toothcolored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: A 24-month follow-up study, Oper. Dent. 25 (2000) 251-258.

[16] M. Folwaczny, C. Loher, A. Mehl, K.H. Kunzelmann, R. Hickel, Class V lesions restored with four different tooth-colored materials. 3-year results, Clin. Oral Investig. 5 (2001) 31-39.

DOI: 10.1007/s007840000098

[17] S. Koubi, A. Raskin, F. Bukiet, C. Pignoly, E. Toca, H. Tassery, One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious cervical lesions, J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 7 (2006).

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-5-42

[18] G. Ozgünaltay, A. Onen, Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions, J. Oral Rehabil. 29 (2002) 1037-1041.

DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00995.x

[19] W.W. Brackett, A. Dib, M.G. Brackett, A.A. Reyes, B.E. Estrada, Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations, Oper. Dent. 28 (2003) 477-481.

[20] J.O. Burgess, J.R. Gallo, A.H. Ripps, R.S. Walker, E.J. Ireland, Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall, Am. J. Dent. 17 (2004) 147-150.

[21] B. Onal, T. Pamir, The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions, J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 136 (2005) 1547-1455.

DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0085

[22] M. Peumans, J. DeMunck, K. L. Van Landuyt et al., Restoring cervical lesions with flexible composites, Dental Materials, 23 (2007) 749–754.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.013

[23] N. Attar, L. E. Tam, D. McComb, Flow, strength, stiffness and radiopacity of flowable resin composites, Journal of the Canadian Dental Association, 69 (2003) 516–521.

[24] L. G. Sensi, F. C. Marson, S. Monteiro Jr., L. N. Baratieri, M. A. C. de Andrada, Flowable composites as filled adhesives,: a microleakage study, The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, 5 (2004) 32–41.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-5-4-32

[25] S.L. Santiago, V.F. Passos, A.H.M. Vieira, M.F. dL. Navarro, J.R.P. Lauris, E.B. Franco, Two-year clinical evaluation, of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions, Braz Dent J. 21 (2010) 229-234.

DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000300010

[26] American Dental Association-Council on Scientific Affairs American Dental Association program guidelines: Products for Dentin and Enamel Adhesive Materials, June 2001 (available at: www. ada. org).

[27] C. Celik, G. Ozgunaltay, N. Attar, Clinical evaluation of flowable resins in non-carious cervical lesions: two-years results, Operative Dentistry, 32 (2007) 313-321.

DOI: 10.2341/06-93

[28] H.O. Heymann, J.R. Sturdevant, S. Bayne, A.D. Wilder, T.B. Sluder, W.D. Brunson, Examining tooth flexure effects on cervical restoration: A two-year clinical study, Journal of the American Dental Association, 122(1991) 41-47.

DOI: 10.1016/s0002-8177(91)25015-1

[29] R. Labella, P. Lambrechts, B. Van Meerbeek, G. Vanherle, Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives, Dental Materials, 15 (1999) 128-137.

DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00022-6

[30] M. J. M. C. Santos, N. Ari, S. Steele, J. Costella, D. Banting, Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions – a systematic review, Clin. Oral Invest. 18 (2014) 1369–1381.

DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1220-7

[31] W.W. Brackett, A. Dib, M.G. Brackett, A.A. Reyes, B.E. Estrada, Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass-ionomer and resin composite restorations, Operative Dentistry 28 (2003) 477-481.

DOI: 10.2341/22-006-s

[32] S. Gladys, B. Van Meerbeek, M. Braem, P. Lambrechts, G. Vanherle, Marginal adaptation and retention of a glass-ionomer, resin-modified glass-ionomer and a polyacidmodified resin composite in cervical Class-V lesions, Dental Materials, 14 (1998).

DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(98)00043-8

[33] B. Van Meerbeek, M. Braem, P. Lambrechts, G. Vanherle, Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 70 (1993) 308-314.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90213-8

[34] M. Braem, P. Lambrechts, V. Van Doren, G. Vanherle, The impact of composite structure on its elastic response, Journal of Dental Research, 65 (1986) 648-653.

DOI: 10.1177/00220345860650050301

[35] G. Willems, P. Lambrechts, M. Braem, J.P. Celis, G. Vanherle, A classification of dental composites according to their morphological and mechanical characteristics, Dental Materials, 8 (1992) 310-319.

DOI: 10.1016/0109-5641(92)90106-m

[36] P. Lambrechts, C. Ameye, G. Vanherle, Conventional and microfilled composite resins, Part II: Chip fracture, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 48 (1982) 527-538.

DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(82)90357-2

[37] R.B. Ermis, Two-year clinical evaluation of four polyacid-modified resin composites and a resin-modified glassionomer cement in Class V lesions, Quintessence International 33 (2002) 542-548.