One-year clinical evaluation of an ethanol-based and a solvent-free dentin adhesive.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the clinical performance of adhesives with various solvents for restoration of non-carious cervical lesions.


METHODS
The patient pool consisted of a total of 57 patients and 171 teeth (3 teeth per patient), with one non-carious cervical lesion per tooth. For each patient, one tooth was restored with a water-based, two-bottle adhesive (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose - SM), and another tooth with an ethanol-based, one-bottle adhesive (Single Bond - SB), and the other tooth with a solvent-free, one-bottle adhesive (One Coat Bond - OCB), all with resin-based composites (Silux Plus or Synergy). Restorations were assessed by retention, marginal integrity, margin discoloration and air sensitivity, according to modified USPHS criteria. The evaluations were performed at baseline, 6 months and 12 months after initial placement.


RESULTS
The retention rates at 12 months were 98% for the SM adhesive, 91% for the SB adhesive, and 93% for the OCB adhesive. The differences in retention rates were not statistically significant, with 94% restorations retained overall. Measures of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration and sensitivity also had no statistically significant differences between the three adhesives. Overall, for the restorations still retained after 12 months, 80% had non/slightly detectable margins, 80% had no marginal discoloration and 90% had none/mild sensitivity. All three adhesives performed comparably with excellent outcomes after a 12-month period, with no significant differences between the water-based, ethanol-based and solvent-free adhesives, nor between the one-and two-bottle systems. Retention rate was high, air sensitivity was markedly reduced, and marginal integrity was good. Although superficial marginal discoloration was notable, no deep staining was evident. Certain lesion, tooth and patient characteristics may predispose restorations to retention failure.
Aw
Tar C
TC
Department of Restorative Dentistry, D-770 Health Sciences Building, School of Dentistry, University of Washington, Box 357456, Seattle, WA 98195-7456, USA. tcaw@u.washington.edu
Lepe
Xavier
X
Johnson
Glen H
GH
Mancl
Lloyd
L
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000737:chemistry; D003116:Color; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent; D003807:Dentin Sensitivity / Q000209:etiology; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry*; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D000431:Ethanol / Q000737:chemistry*; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D008875:Middle Aged; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012997:Solvents / Q000737:chemistry*; D014092:Tooth Root / Q000473:pathology; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; C426984:One Coat Bond; D019279:Resin Cements; C084018:Scotchbond Multi-Purpose; D012997:Solvents; C452441:Synergy composite resin; C115612:single bond; C074741:Silux Plus; D000431:Ethanol; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate