Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

TY - JOUR

T1 - Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive

AU - van Dijken, Jan WV

AU - Pallesen, Ulla

PY - 2015/7/26

Y1 - 2015/7/26

N2 - Objectives: The aimof this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. Conclusion: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. Clinical relevance: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

AB - Objectives: The aimof this study is to observe the durability of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations, placed with two different adhesive systems, in an 8-year follow-up. Methods: Seventy-eight participants received at random at least two Class II restorations of the ormocer-based nanohybrid resin composite (Ceram X) bonded with either a one-step self-etch adhesive (Xeno III) or a control two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Excite). The 165 restorations were evaluated using slightly modified United States Public Health Services (USPHS) criteria at baseline and then yearly during 8 years. Results: One hundred and fifty-eight restorations were evaluated after 8 years. Three participants with five restorations (three Xeno III, two Excite) were registered as dropouts. Twenty-one failed restorations (13.3 %) were observed during the follow-up. Twelve in the one-step self-etch adhesive group (13.5 %) and nine in the two-step etch-and-rinse group (13.0 %). This resulted in nonsignificant different annual failure rates of 1.69 and 1.63 %, respectively. Fracture of restoration was the main reason for failure. Conclusion: Good clinical performance was shown during the 8-year evaluation and no significant difference in overall clinical performance between the two adhesives. Fracture was the main reason for failure. Clinical relevance: The one-step self-etch adhesive showed a good long-term clinical effectiveness in combination with the nanohybrid resin composite in Class II restorations.

KW - Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences

KW - Dental restorations

KW - Clinical

KW - Composite Resins

KW - Nano

KW - Posterior

KW - Self-etch adhesive

M3 - Journal article

SN - 1432-6981

VL - 19

SP - 1371

EP - 1379

JO - Clinical Oral Investigations

JF - Clinical Oral Investigations

IS - 6

ER -