Page 11 - SPEMD_61-3

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac . 2020;61(3):97-105 101

Table 4. Number of evaluated restorations for each experimental group classified according to the World Dental
Federation (FDI) criteria
p value
Self -Etch Etch -and -Rinse
(between SE and ER)**
Variables Scale
Baseline 6 months p value* Baseline 6 months p value* Baseline 6months
N(%) N(%) N(%) N(%)
1 58 (100.0) 54(93.1) 59 (100.0) 48 (96.0)
2 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Marginal
Coloring 3 0 (0.0) 1(1.7) 0.1336 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0) 0.4795 1.000 0.4896
4 0 (0.0) 1(1.7) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
5 0 (0.0) 2(3.5) 0 (0.0) 1(2.0)
1 58 (100.0) 58 (100.0) 59 (100.0) 50 (84.8)
2 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Fractures and 3 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1.000 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0.0077 1.000 0.0028
retention
4 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
5 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 9 (15.3)
1 58 (100.0) 57 (98.3) 59 (100.0) 39 (78.4)
2 0 (0.0) 1 (1.7) 0 (0.0) 7 (13.7)
Marginal
adaptation 3 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1.000 0 (0.0) 3 (5.9) 0.0026 1.000 0.0016
4 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
5 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (2.0)
1 47 (81.0) 45 (77.6) 35 (59.3) 35 (70.4)
2 7 (12.1) 12 (20.7) 16 (27.2) 13 (25.9)
Hypersensitivity 3 4(6.9) 1 (1.7) 0.4795 6 (10.2) 2 (3.7) 0.0703 0.0118 0.3852
4 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (3.4) 0 (0.0)

5 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
1 58 (100.0) 58 (100.0) 59 (100.0) 59 (100.0)
2 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
Recurrence of 3 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1.000 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 1.000 1.000 1.000
caries
4 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
5 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0)
* From McNemar test, and categories 2 -5 were combined for the test; ** From GEE model analysis.

restorations were lost at 6 months in the ADH -ER group accord- Since universal adhesives have only recently been intro-
ing to the FDI criteria. No restorations were lost due to caries. duced, most studies found in the literature are laboratory tests,
There were no dropouts in this study, so all patients were eval- mainly microtensile bond strength tests. The results from
uated at baseline and at 6 months. Representative images of these in vitro studies on dentin are very similar between the
restorations are presented in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. ER and SE techniques. 3,8,23 For enamel, it seems that etching
the enamel prior to universal adhesive application improves
bond strength because etching creates microporosities that
Discussion are readily penetrated by the adhesive. 24-29
Although in vitro studies can help us understand the be-
The clinical success of resin composite restorations depends havior of adhesives, 30,31 clinical trials with controlled and
on effective adhesion to enamel and dentin. Clinical studies standardized study designs are the ultimate test to evaluate
are the first level of scientific evidence to evaluate the effec- the clinical effectiveness of universal adhesives, preferably in
tiveness of dental adhesives. 22 NCCLs. 32