Home Current issue Instructions
About us Archives Login 
Editorial board Search articles Contact us
Home Print this page Email this page Users Online: 93
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 23-27

Clinical evaluation of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system in class V noncarious composite restorations

1 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Franciscan University, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil
2 Department of Stomatology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, RS, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Jovito Adiel Skupien
Universidade Franciscana, Rua dos Andradas 1614, 97010-032, Santa Maria, RS
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_102_19

Rights and Permissions

Context: Adhesive restorations in cervical, noncarious, and nonretentive cavities are used as a clinical model for the evaluation of adhesive systems. Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate restorations made by dental students of the last year of dentistry made with a self-etching and etching-and-rinse adhesive system. Materials and Methods: Eighty-two noncarious cervical lesions Class V cavities were restored after randomly be allocated into two adhesive groups: self-etch (AdheSe self-etch) or an etch-and-rinse (Tetric N-Bond). Operators were two well-trained students of the last year of dental school and the restorations were evaluated using a single examiner, specialist in restorative dentistry, blinded and calibrated using the criteria according to the modified United States Public Health Service. Descriptive analysis, Chi-square test to evaluate associations, and survival analysis by the Kaplan–Meier were used for statistical analysis. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the evaluation of adhesive systems in Class V restorations (P = 0.160). There was also no statistically difference (P = 0.751) in the assessment of the existence of occlusal interference on lateral movement and loss of restorations. The survival rate calculated for the total restorations was 89%. The survival rate of the restorations when used etch-and-rinse adhesive systems was 92.7% while with the self-etching of 85.4%. Nine restorations were classified as lost, and one restoration cannot be assessed due to the patient having it replaced before evaluation, and the other eight restorations were lost getting the score Charlie for retention. Conclusions: Class V dental restorations had a satisfactory survival rate irrespective of the adhesive system.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded205    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal