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

M. G. Brackett, A. Dib, G. Franco, B. E. Estrada, W. W. Brackett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate the twoyear 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)273-278
Number of pages6
JournalOperative dentistry
Volume35
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2010

Fingerprint

Adhesives
Dentistry
Tooth Abrasion
Root Caries
United States Public Health Service
Private Practice
Dentin
Dental Enamel
Research
Japan
Air

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Two-year clinical performance of clearfil SE and clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class v lesions. / Brackett, M. G.; Dib, A.; Franco, G.; Estrada, B. E.; Brackett, W. W.

In: Operative dentistry, Vol. 35, No. 3, 01.05.2010, p. 273-278.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a0fdd1d2ea294a5a9325fac82d098730,
title = "Two-year clinical performance of clearfil SE and clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class v lesions",
abstract = "This study was undertaken to evaluate the twoyear 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.",
author = "Brackett, {M. G.} and A. Dib and G. Franco and Estrada, {B. E.} and Brackett, {W. W.}",
year = "2010",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2341/09-266-C",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "35",
pages = "273--278",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Two-year clinical performance of clearfil SE and clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class v lesions

AU - Brackett, M. G.

AU - Dib, A.

AU - Franco, G.

AU - Estrada, B. E.

AU - Brackett, W. W.

PY - 2010/5/1

Y1 - 2010/5/1

N2 - This study was undertaken to evaluate the twoyear 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.

AB - This study was undertaken to evaluate the twoyear 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77953446590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77953446590&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2341/09-266-C

DO - 10.2341/09-266-C

M3 - Article

VL - 35

SP - 273

EP - 278

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 3

ER -