A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial
A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-01
影响因子：
4.4
通讯作者：
Perdigao, Jorge
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Loguercio, Alessandro D.;de Paula, Eloisa Andrade;Perdigao, Jorge
问题陈述：它仍然是有争议的技术应使用通用粘合剂，无论是蚀刻和冲洗（湿或干）或自蚀刻策略（有或没有选择性釉质蚀刻）。研究目的：为了评估36个月的临床性能的Scotchbond通用粘合剂（SU，3 M ESPE）在非龋性宫颈病变（NCCLs）使用两个评价标准。将200个牙釉质分为四组：ERm：蚀刻和冲洗+湿润牙本质; ERd：蚀刻和冲洗+干燥牙本质; Set：选择性牙釉质蚀刻; SE：自蚀刻。相同的复合树脂以最多3个增量被插入用于所有置换。使用FDI和USPHS标准在基线以及6个月、18个月和36个月时对修复体进行评估。采用Friedman重复测量ANOVA进行统计学分析，通过秩和McNemar检验每对中的显著性（α = 0.05）。结果：36个月后丢失了8个校正（ERm：1; ERd：1; Set：1和SE：5），但与基线相比，仅SE具有显著性（任一标准p = 0.02）。边缘染色发生在6.8%的消退（ERm、ERd和Set组）和17.5%的消退（SE组）中，当使用FDI标准与基线相比时，各组均具有显著差异（p < 0.04），而当使用USPHS标准与基线相比时，仅SE达到统计学显著性（p < 0.03）。分别使用USPHS和FDI标准将28次和49次矫正评分为边缘适应性良好，与基线相比，各组差异显著（p < 0.05）。结论：虽然使用通用粘合剂时，粘合策略之间没有统计学差异，但当在SE模式下使用通用粘合剂时，有降解迹象。外国直接投资标准仍然比USPHS标准更敏感，特别是对于标准边际染色和边际适应。(C)2015爱思唯尔有限公司版权所有。
Statement of the problem: It is still debatable which technique should be used with universal adhesives, either etch-and-rinse (wet or dry) or self-etch strategy (with or without selective enamel etching).Purpose of the study: To evaluate the 36-month clinical performance of Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M ESPE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) using two evaluation criteria.Methods/materials: Thirty-nine patients participated in this study. Two-hundred restorations were assigned to four groups: ERm: etch-and-rinse + moist dentin; ERd: etch-and-rinse + dry dentin; Set: selective enamel etching; and SE: self-etch. The same composite resin was inserted for all restorations in up to 3 increments. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-, 18-, and 36-months using both the FDI and the USPHS criteria. Statistical analyses were performed with Friedman repeated measures ANOVA by rank and McNemar test for significance in each pair (alpha = 0.05).Results: Eight restorations (ERm: 1; ERd: 1; Set: 1 and SE: 5) were lost after 36 months, but only significant for SE when compared with baseline (p = 0.02 for either criteria). Marginal staining occurred in 6.8% of the restorations (groups ERm, ERd, and Set) and 17.5% of the restorations (group SE), with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline using the FDI criteria (p < 0.04), while statistical significance was reached only for SE when compared with baseline using the USPHS criteria (p < 0.03). Twenty-eight and 49 restorations were scored as bravo for marginal adaptation using the USPHS and FDI criteria, respectively, with significant difference for each group when compared with baseline (p < 0.05).Conclusions: While there was no statistical difference among bonding strategies when a universal adhesive was used, there were signs of degradation when the universal adhesive was applied in SE mode. The FDI criteria remain more sensitive than the USPHS criteria, especially for the criteria marginal staining and marginal adaptation. (C) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.