A three-year randomized clinical trial evaluating direct posterior composite restorations placed with three self-etch adhesives

References

• Bayne SC, Ferracane JL, Marshall GA-O, et al. The evolution of dental materials over the past century: silver and gold to tooth color and beyond. J Dent Res. 2019;98(3):257–265.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuncer S, Demirci M, Öztaş E, et al. Microhybrid versus nanofill composite in combination with a three step etch and rinse adhesive in occlusal cavities: five year results. Restor Dent Endod. 2017;42(4):253–263.
   Google Scholar
• Alzraikat H, Burrow MF, Maghaireh GA, et al. Nanofilled Resin Composite Properties and Clinical Performance: A Review. Oper Dent. 2018;43(4):E173–E190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: Not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maran BM, de Geus JL, Gutiérrez MF, et al. Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2020;99:103407.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çelik Ç, Arhun N, Yamanel K. Clinical evaluation of resin-based composites in posterior restorations: a 3-year study. Med Princ Pract. 2014;23(5):453–459.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, et al. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. a status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Araujo E, Ramos R, et al. Adhesive dentistry: Current concepts and clinical considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021;33(1):51–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Ceballos L, Giráldez I, et al. Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive-a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Invest. 2020;24(2):765–776.
   Web of Science ®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.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011; 27(1):17–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lührs AK, Guhr S, Borchers L, et al. Shear bond strength of self-etch adhesives to enamel with additional phosphoric acid etching. Oper Dent. 2008;33(2):155–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijken JW, 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(4):287–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cuevas-Suárez C, Da Rosa W, Lund R, et al. Bonding performance of universal adhesives: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):7–26.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• de Paris Matos T, Perdigão J, de Paula E, et al. Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial. Dent Mater. 2020;36(11):1474–1485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlson RV, Boyd K, Webb DJ. The revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: past, present and future. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(6):695–713.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posterior composite resins. Council on dental materials, instruments, and equipment. J Am Dent Assoc. 1986;112(5):707–709.
   Google Scholar
• Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1973;87(2):369–377.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bicalho AA, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A, et al. Effect of occlusal loading and mechanical properties of resin composite on stress generated in posterior restorations. Am J Dent. 2014;27(3):129–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Akimoto N, Takamizu M, Momoi Y. 10-year clinical evaluation of a self-etching adhesive system. Oper Dent. 2007;32(1):3–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schroeder M, Correa IC, Bauer J, et al. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017;62:36–53.
   Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hickel R, Roulet J, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Science Committee Project 2/98–FDI World Dental Federation Study Design (Part I) and Criteria for Evaluation (Part II) of Direct and Indirect Restorations Including Onlays and Partial Crowns. 2007;9(6):546.
   Google Scholar
• Jacker-Guhr S, Sander J, Luehrs AK. How "Universal" is adhesion? Shear bond strength of multi-mode adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(1):87–95.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoshika S, Kameyama A, Suyama Y, et al. GPDM- and 10-MDP-based self-etch adhesives bonded to bur-cut and uncut enamel immediate and aged µTBS. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(2):113–120.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshikawa T, Sadr A, Tagami J. Effects of C-factor on bond strength to floor and wall dentin. Dent Mater J. 2016;35(6):918–922.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mine A, De Munck J, Cardoso M, et al. Bonding effectiveness of two contemporary self-etch adhesives to enamel and dentin. J Dent. 2009; 37(11):872–883.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vanajasan P, Dhakshinamoorthy M, Subba Rao C. Factors affecting the bond strength of self-etch adhesives: A meta-analysis of literature. J Conserv Dent. 2011;14(1):62–67.
   Google Scholar
• Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP, et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(1):3–10.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Masarwa N, Mohamed A, Abou-Rabii I, et al. Longevity of self-etch dentin bonding adhesives compared to etch-and-rinse dentin bonding adhesives: a systematic review. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2016;16(2):96–106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Anauate-Netto C, et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of self-etching adhesives in posterior restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2009;11(2):149–159.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alex G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2015;36(1):15–26.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Manarte-Monteiro P, Domingues J, Teixeira L, et al. Multi-mode adhesives performance and success/retention rates in NCCLs restorations: randomised clinical trial one-year report. Biomater Investig Dent. 2019;6(1):43–53.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Carvalho AA, Leite MM, Zago JKM, et al. Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin - a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):252.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamauchi K, Tsujimoto A, Jurado CA, et al. Etch-and-rinse vs self-etch mode for dentin bonding effectiveness of universal adhesives. J Oral Sci. 2019;61(4):549–553.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delbons FB, Perdigão J, Araujo E, et al. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in posterior restorations-18-month results. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(2):107–117.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent. 2019;45(1):1559–2863.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferracane JL. Resin composite-state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patel B, Chhabra N, Jain D. Effect of different polishing systems on the surface roughness of nano-hybrid composites. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):37–40.
   Google Scholar
• Hoseinifar R, Mortazavi-Lahijani E, Mollahassani H, et al. One year clinical evaluation of a low shrinkage composite compared with a packable composite resin: a randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2017;14(2):84–91.
   Google Scholar
• Ehrmann E, Medioni E, Brulat-Bouchard N. Finishing and polishing effects of multiblade burs on the surface texture of 5 resin composites: microhardness and roughness testing. Restor Dent Endod. 2019;44(1):e1.
   Google Scholar
• Bohaty BS, Ye Q, Misra A, et al. Posterior composite restoration update: focus on factors influencing form and function. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013;5:33–42.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003;111(2):155–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Vanloy A, et al. Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):683–691.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar