Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions

• Published in: Operative dentistry Vol. 35; no. 3; p. 273
• Main Authors: Brackett, Martha Goël, Dib, Alejandro, Franco, Guillermo, Estrada, Blanca E, Brackett, William W
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.05.2010
• Subjects: Adult; Color; Composite Resins - chemistry; Dental Bonding; Dental Caries - etiology; Dental Enamel - pathology; Dental Marginal Adaptation; Dental Materials - chemistry; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods; Dentin - pathology; Dentin Sensitivity - therapy; Dentin, Secondary - pathology; Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Materials Testing; Methacrylates - chemistry; Middle Aged; Resin Cements - chemistry; Surface Properties; Tooth Abrasion - therapy; Tooth Erosion - therapy; Tooth Wear - therapy
• ISSN: 0361-7734
• DOI: 10.2341/09-266-c

This study was undertaken to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of a self-etching primer and a self-etching adhesive, both of which employ the same acidic monomer. Forty pairs of restorations of AP-X hybrid resin composite (Kuraray Co, Ltd, Osaka, Japan) were placed in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions. Based on insensitivity to air, the dentin in 62% of these lesions was considered to be sclerotic. The restorations were placed with no abrasion of tooth surfaces, except for cleaning with plain pumice and no use of phosphoric acid etching, which is counter to the manufacturer's instructions that call for etching of unprepared enamel. One restoration from each pair was placed using Clearfil SE Bond, an adhesive employing a self-etching primer, and the other was placed using Clearfil S3 Bond, a self-etching adhesive. To emulate the results likely to occur in a private practice, the restorations were placed by well-educated, experienced clinicians who had no particular expertise in adhesive dentistry research and who placed the restorations according only to their interpretation of the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months, using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria. For both products, retention of 81%-84% of the restorations was observed over two years, which is lower than has been previously observed with these products and is likely due to limitations in the manufacturer's instructions compounded by inexperience of the operators in adhesive dentistry research. One restoration placed with each adhesive demonstrated secondary caries, which was probably attributable to the study being conducted in a non-fluoridated area and which reduced the percentages of clinically successful restorations to 78%-81%. No statistically significant difference (p = 0.50) between the two adhesives was observed in overall performance.