Clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in Class v composite resin restorations

Two-year randomized controlled clinical trial

J. H. Jang, Hae-Young Kim, S. M. Shin, C. O. Lee, D. S. Kim, K. K. Choi, S. Y. Kim

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p<0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p>0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)19-29
Number of pages11
JournalOperative Dentistry
Volume42
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2017 Jan 1

Fingerprint

Composite Resins
Adhesives
Randomized Controlled Trials
Retreatment
Rubber
Staining and Labeling
Light
Clearfil SE Bond

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in Class v composite resin restorations : Two-year randomized controlled clinical trial. / Jang, J. H.; Kim, Hae-Young; Shin, S. M.; Lee, C. O.; Kim, D. S.; Choi, K. K.; Kim, S. Y.

In: Operative Dentistry, Vol. 42, No. 1, 01.01.2017, p. 19-29.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{1c3e8001464546d59a217a93bb1711c0,
title = "Clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in Class v composite resin restorations: Two-year randomized controlled clinical trial",
abstract = "The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p<0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p>0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.",
author = "Jang, {J. H.} and Hae-Young Kim and Shin, {S. M.} and Lee, {C. O.} and Kim, {D. S.} and Choi, {K. K.} and Kim, {S. Y.}",
year = "2017",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.2341/16-104-C",
language = "English",
volume = "42",
pages = "19--29",
journal = "Operative Dentistry",
issn = "0361-7734",
publisher = "Indiana University School of Dentistry",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in Class v composite resin restorations

T2 - Two-year randomized controlled clinical trial

AU - Jang, J. H.

AU - Kim, Hae-Young

AU - Shin, S. M.

AU - Lee, C. O.

AU - Kim, D. S.

AU - Choi, K. K.

AU - Kim, S. Y.

PY - 2017/1/1

Y1 - 2017/1/1

N2 - The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p<0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p>0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.

AB - The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the clinical effectiveness of different polishing systems and self-etch adhesives in class V composite resin restorations. A total of 164 noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) from 35 patients were randomly allocated to one of four experimental groups, each of which used a combination of polishing systems and adhesives. The two polishing systems used were Sof-Lex XT (Sof), a multistep abrasive disc, and Enhance/Pogo (EP), a simplified abrasive-impregnated rubber instrument. The adhesive systems were Clearfil SE bond (CS), a two-step self-etch adhesive, and Xeno V (XE), a one-step self-etch adhesive. All NCCLs were restored with light-cured microhybrid resin composites (Z250). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months by two blinded independent examiners using modified FDI criteria. The Fisher exact test and generalized estimating equation analysis considering repeated measurements were performed to compare the outcomes between the polishing systems and adhesives. Three restorations were dislodged: two in CS/Sof and one in CS/EP. None of the restorations required any repair or retreatment except those showing retention loss. Sof was superior to EP with regard to surface luster, staining, and marginal adaptation (p<0.05). CS and XE did not show differences in any criteria (p>0.05). Sof is clinically superior to EP for polishing performance in class V composite resin restoration. XE demonstrates clinically equivalent bonding performance to CS.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85008352228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85008352228&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2341/16-104-C

DO - 10.2341/16-104-C

M3 - Article

VL - 42

SP - 19

EP - 29

JO - Operative Dentistry

JF - Operative Dentistry

SN - 0361-7734

IS - 1

ER -