An eight-year clinical evaluation of filled and unfilled one-bottle dental adhesives.
BACKGROUND
The strategies for accomplishing resin adhesion to dentin involve surface conditioning, priming and bonding. One-bottle adhesives combine the priming and bonding functions in a single solution. In this study, the authors compared the eight-year clinical performance of two one-bottle adhesives made by different manufacturers.


METHODS
The authors placed a total of 99 Class V restorations using either a filled, ethanol-based adhesive (OptiBond Solo [OS], SDS Kerr, Orange, Calif.) or an unfilled, acetone-based adhesive (Prime & Bond 2.1 [PB] Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del.) and a hybrid resin-based composite in 33 subjects with noncarious cervical lesions. The authors did not bevel the enamel margins and used no mechanical retention. They evaluated the restorations at baseline and for as long as eight years after placement using modified U.S. Public Health Service criteria. They analyzed differences between groups using appropriate statistical tests.


RESULTS
The authors examined 56 restorations after eight years and found retention rates of 69 percent for OS and 59 percent for PB. These rates did not differ statistically (P = .449) and were not significantly affected by subject or lesion characteristics. The authors noted marginal discoloration on 55 percent of the retained OS restorations and on 31 percent of the retained PB restorations, but they detected no secondary caries around any restoration. They noted poor anatomical form and poor marginal adaptation in 15 percent and 40 percent of the retained OS restorations, respectively.


CONCLUSIONS
The performance of both adhesives was good during this eight-year clinical trial. The filled, ethanol-based adhesive OS demonstrated slightly better bond durability than did the unfilled, acetone-based adhesive PB, but the difference between the two materials was not statistically significant.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite a high incidence of marginal discoloration, the one-bottle adhesives evaluated in this study provided good clinical retention of Class V restorations without mechanical retention. When the materials are used properly, restorations are retained at an acceptable rate through at least eight years of clinical service.
Ritter
André V
AV
Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27599-7450, USA. rittera@dentistry.unc.edu
Swift
Edward J
EJ
Heymann
Harald O
HO
Sturdevant
John R
JR
Wilder
Aldridge D
AD
D000096:Acetone; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents / Q000737:chemistry; D000431:Ethanol; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D019237:Tooth Cervix
D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; C428805:OptiBond SOLO; D011109:Polymethacrylic Acids; D019279:Resin Cements; C444444:prime and bond 2.1; D000096:Acetone; D000431:Ethanol; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate