A three-year clinical evaluation of two-bottle versus one-bottle dentin adhesives.
BACKGROUND
The authors conducted an in vivo investigation to compare the clinical performance of two commercial one-bottle adhesives and a two-bottle adhesive for restoration of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).


METHODS
The patient pool consisted of 57 patients and 171 teeth (three teeth per patient), with one NCCL per tooth. Each patient received three resin-based composite restorations, each with a different adhesive: one tooth with a two-bottle, water-based adhesive as the control; another tooth with a one-bottle, ethanol-based adhesive; and a third tooth with a one-bottle, solvent-free adhesive. The authors assessed restorations in terms of retention, marginal integrity, margin discoloration and air sensitivity at baseline, six months, one year, two years and three years after initial placement.


RESULTS
The retention rates at 36 months were 88 percent for the first adhesive, 81 percent for the second adhesive and 90 percent for the third adhesive. No statistically significant differences in retention rates could be shown, with 86 percent of restorations retained overall. Measures of marginal integrity, marginal discoloration and sensitivity also had no statistically significant differences between the three adhesives (P > .05).


CONCLUSIONS
All three adhesives performed with acceptable outcomes after a 36-month period, with small differences between the one- and two-bottle systems and between the various solvents. Retention rate was moderately high and air sensitivity was markedly reduced; however, superficial marginal discoloration and marginal degradation was notable. Certain lesion, tooth and patient characteristics may predispose restorations to retention failure.


CONCLUSIONS
The type of solvent may not be a major factor in retention of Class V restorations in NCCLs. Both single-bottle adhesives and conventional two-bottle adhesives performed acceptably.
Aw
Tar C
TC
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Washington, School of Dentistry, Seattle 98195-7456, USA. tcaw@u.washington.edu
Lepe
Xavier
X
Johnson
Glen H
GH
Mancl
Lloyd A
LA
D000269:Adhesives / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins; D018772:Dental Marginal Adaptation; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003807:Dentin Sensitivity / Q000209:etiology; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D004311:Double-Blind Method; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D016015:Logistic Models; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D008875:Middle Aged; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000737:chemistry; D019237:Tooth Cervix; D014075:Tooth Discoloration / Q000209:etiology
D000269:Adhesives; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D008689:Methacrylates; C426984:One Coat Bond; D019279:Resin Cements; C084018:Scotchbond Multi-Purpose; C115612:single bond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate