Clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non- carious cervical lesions

30-month clinical trial


  • Neimar Sartori Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
  • Eduardo Pacheco Cirurgião-dentista
  • Patrícia Tolentino da Rosa Souza Cirurgião-dentista
  • Guilherme Carpena Lopes Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina
  • Lais Dalmagro Peruchi Cirurgião-dentista


Biomedical research, Dentin sensitivity, Dentin-bonding agents, Composite resins, Tooth erosion


Aim: The objective of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the 30-month clinical performance of   two   adhesive   systems in non-carious Class V lesions.

Materials and Methods: Sixty-three non-carious cervical lesions were restored with composite resin Polofil M (Voco), together with the Futurabond NR (Voco) or Solobond M (Voco) adhesive systems. Composite restorations were bonded following two approaches: the application of a Futurabond NR following the self-etch approach (G1) and the application of a Solobond M following the etch-and-rinse approach (G2). The restorations were evaluated after 7 days and after 6, 18, and 30 months of clinical service regarding their retention, marginal discoloration and integrity, post-operative sensitivity, and incidence of secondary caries, using USPHS criteria. The data were submitted to the McNemar and Chi- square tests (α=0.05).

Results: After 30 months, 12 restorations were lost, 6 in each group. The alpha score percentage of each group was: retention (G1: 77.8%; G2: 81.2%), marginal discoloration (G1: 66.7%; G2: 80.8%), marginal integrity (G1: 61.9%; G2: 80.8%), post-operative sensitivity (G1: 90.5%; G2: 89.4%), and incidence of secondary caries (G1: 95.2%; G2: 100%). No statistically significant difference could be observed between the groups for any of the evaluated criteria (p>0.05).

Conclusion: After 30 months of clinical service, both adhesive systems presented similar clinical performances.



Download data is not yet available.


Perdigão J, Lopes M. The effect of etching time on dentin demineralization. Quintessence Int. 2001; 32:10-26.

Perdigão J, Ritter AV. Adesão aos tecidos dentários. In: Baratieri LN, Monteiro Junior S, Andrada MAC, Vieira LCC, Ritter AV, Cardoso AC. Odontologia restauradora: fundamentos e possibilidades. São Paulo: Santos; 2001. p.83- 128.

Li H, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Nanoleakage patterns of four dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:48-56.

Santini A, Plasschaert AJ, Mitchell S. Effect of composite resin placement techniques on the microleakage of two self-etching dentin-bonding agents. Am J Dent. 2001; 14:132-6.

Irie M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Immediate performance of self-etching versus system adhesives with multiple light-activated restoratives. Dent Mater. 2004; 20:873-80.

American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. cceptance program guidelines: dentin and enamel adhesive materials. Chicago: American Dental Association; 2001.

Türkün LS. The clinical performance of one- and two-step self-etching adhesive systems at one year. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005; 136:656-64.

Hickel R, Roulet JF, Bayne S, Heintze SD, Mjor IA, Peters M, 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. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9:121-47.

Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971. Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9:215-32.

Holland GR, Narhi MN, Addy M, Gangarosa L, Orchardson R. Guidelines for the design and conduct of clinical trials on dentine hypersensitivity. J Clin Periodontol. 1997; 24:808-13.

Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step selfetch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dent Mater. 2010; 26:1176-84.

Ritter AV, Swift EJ Jr, Heymann HO, Sturdevant JR, Wilder AD Jr. An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140:28-37; quiz 111-2.

Wilder AD Jr, Swift EJJr, Heymann HO, Ritter AV, Sturdevant JR, Bayne SC. A 12-year clinical evaluation of a three-step dentin adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009; 140:526-35.

Van Landuyt K, Fieuws S, Van Meerbeek B. Sample size considerations for restorationlongevity randomized controlled trials. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10:247.

Eliasziw M, Donner A. Application of the McNemar test to non-independent matched pair data. Stat Med. 1991; 10:1981-91.

Van Meerbeek B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent. 1998; 26:1-20.

Gwinnett AJ, Jendresen MD. Micromorphologic features of cervical erosion after acid conditioning and its relation with composite resin. J Dent Res. 1978; 57:543-9.

McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129:593-9.

Lima Gda S, Ogliari FA, da Silva EO, Ely C, Demarco FF, Carreno NL, et al. Influence of water concentration in an experimental selfetching primer on the bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10:167-72.

Sadr A, Shimada Y, Tagami J. Effects of solvent drying time on micro-shear bond strength and mechanical properties of two self-etching adhesive systems. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1114-9.

Balkenhol M, Huang J, Wostmann B, Hannig M. Influence of solvent type in experimental dentin primer on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorations. J Dent. 2007; 35:836-44.

Reis A, Loguercio AD, Azevedo CL, de Carvalho RM, da Julio Singer M, Grande RH. Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent bases. J Adhes Dent. 2003; 5:183-92.

Holmes RG, Rueggeberg FA, Callan RS, Caughman F, Chan DC, Pashley DH, et al. Effect of solvent type and content on monomer conversion of a model resin system as a thin film. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1506-12.

Tay FR, Gwinnett JA, Wei SH. Relation between water content in acetone/alcohol-based primer and interfacial ultrastructure. J Dent. 1998; 26:147-56.

Burgess JO, Gallo JR, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ. Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall. Am J Dent. 2004; 17:147-50.

Ichim IP, Schmidlin PR, Li Q, Kieser JA, Swain MV. Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions Part II. Restorative material selection to minimise fracture. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:1562-9.

Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? J Adhes Dent. 2008; 10:339-44.

Brännström M. Etiology of dentin hypersensitivity. Proc Finn Dent Soc. 1992; 88:7-13.

Mjor IA, Moorhead JE, Dahl JE. Reasons for replacement of restorations in permanent teeth in general dental practice. Int Dent J. 2000; 50:361- 6.



How to Cite

Sartori, N., Pacheco, E., Souza, P. T. da R., Lopes, G. C., & Peruchi, L. D. (2016). Clinical evaluation of two adhesive systems in non- carious cervical lesions: 30-month clinical trial. Arquivos Em Odontologia, 47(3). Retrieved from




Most read articles by the same author(s)