Multi-Mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomised clinical trial one-year report

References

• Takamizawa T, Barkmeier WW, Tsujimoto A. Influence of different etching modes on bond strength and fatigue strength to dentin using universal adhesive systems. Dent Mater. 2016;32(2):e9–21.
   Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano A, et al. A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 18-Month Clinical Evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113–127.
   Google Scholar
• Loguercio AD, De Paula EA, Hass V, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1083–1092.
   Google Scholar
• Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu C-C, et al. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43(10):1229–1234.
   Google Scholar
• Lopes L, Calazans F, Hidalgo R, et al. Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):465–480.
   Google Scholar
• Khare M, Suprabha BS, Shenoy R, et al. Evaluation of pit-and-fissure sealants placed with four different bonding protocols: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):444–453.
   Google Scholar
• van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Three-year randomized clinical study of a one-step universal adhesive and a two-step self-etch adhesive in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2017;19:287–294.
   Google Scholar
• Ruschel V, Shibata S, Stolf S, et al. Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):241–249.
   Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC. Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent. 2012;25(3):153–158.
   Google Scholar
• Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, et al. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’ adhesive to enamel and dentine. J Dent. 2012;40(6):475–484.
   Google Scholar
• Muñoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, et al. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent. 2013;41(5):404–411.
   Google Scholar
• Tuncer D, Basaran S, Halacoglu DM, et al. Effect of haemostatic agent application on the shear bond strength of contemporary/multi-mode adhesive systems. Oral Heal Dent Manag. 2014;13:103–106.
   Google Scholar
• Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-Year in vitro study. J Dent. 2014;42(5):603–612.
   Google Scholar
• Vermelho PM, Reis AF, Ambrosano GMB, et al. Adhesion of multimode adhesives to enamel and dentin after one year of water storage. Clin Oral Invest. 2017;21(5):1707–1715.
   Google Scholar
• Gupta A, Tavane P, Gupta PK, et al. Evaluation of microleakage with total etch, self etch and universal adhesive systems in class V restorations: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagnostic Res. 2017;11:ZC53–ZC56.
   Google Scholar
• Pashaev D, Demirci M, Tekçe N, et al. The effect of double-coating and times on the immediate and 6-month dentin bonding of universal adhesives. BME. 2017;28:169–185.
   Google Scholar
• Poggio C, Beltrami R, Colombo M, et al. Influence of dentin pretreatment on bond strength of universal adhesives. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand. 2017;3(1):30–35.
   Google Scholar
• Torres CRG, Zanatta RF, Silva TJ, et al. Influence of previous acid etching on bond strength of universal adhesives to enamel and dentin. Gen Dent. 2017;65(2):e17–21.
   Google Scholar
• Tay FR, Pashley DH. Dental adhesives of the future. J Adhes Dent. 2002;4(2):91–103.
   Google Scholar
• Cuevas-Suárez CE, Rosa Wl de O D, Lund RG, et al. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):7–26.
   Google Scholar
• Nagarkar S, Theis-Mahon N, Perdigão J. Universal dental adhesives: current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance. J Biomed Mater Res. 2019;107(6):2121–2131.
   Google Scholar
• Pena C, Rodrigues J, Ely C, et al. Two-year randomized clinical trial of self-etching adhesives and selective enamel etching. Oper Dent. 2016;41(3):249–257.
   Google Scholar
• Mahn E, Rousson V, Heintze S. Analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):391–403.
   Google Scholar
• Perdigão J. Dentin bonding-variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater. 2010;26:24–37.
   Google Scholar
• Van Meerbeek B, Perdigão J, Lambrechts P, et al. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998;26(1):1–20.
   Google Scholar
• Chee B, Rickman LJ, Satterthwaite JD. Adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review. J Dent. 2012;40(6):443–452.
   Google Scholar
• Ritter AV, Heymann HO, Swift EJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of an all-in-one adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions with different degrees of dentin sclerosis. Oper Dent. 2008;33(4):370–378.
   Google Scholar
• Boushell LW, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, et al. Six-year clinical performance of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2016;32(9):1065–1072.
   Google Scholar
• Chen C, Niu LN, Xie H, et al. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine-Old wine in new bottles? J Dent. 2015;43(5):525–536.
   Google Scholar
• Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMC Med. 2010;8(1):18.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg. 2012;10(1):28–55.
   Google Scholar
• Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest. 2007;11(1):5–33.
   Google Scholar
• Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, et al. Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2015;31(3):308–314.
   Google Scholar
• Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Comparison of two all-in-one adhesives bonded to non-carious cervical lesions-results at 3 years. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16(4):1089–1094.
   Google Scholar
• Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, et al. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1089–1103.
   Google Scholar
• Jacker-Guhr S, Sander J, Luehrs A-K. How ‘Universal’ is adhesion? Shear bond strength of multi-mode adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):87–95.
   Google Scholar
• da Silva TSP, de Castro RF, Magno MB, et al. Do HEMA-free adhesive systems have better clinical performance than HEMA-containing systems in noncarious cervical lesions? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2018;74:1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Heintze SD, Blunck U, Göhring TN, et al. Marginal adaptation in vitro and clinical outcome of Class V restorations. Dent Mater. 2009;25(5):605–620.
   Google Scholar
• Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations - A meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2010;26(10):993–1000.
   Google Scholar