Prospective clinical evaluation of three different bonding systems in class V resin restorations with or without mechanical retention.
10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.4.300
- Author:
Kyung Wook LEE
1
;
Sae Joon CHOUNG
;
Young Chul HAN
;
Ho Hyun SON
;
Chung Moon UM
;
Myoung Hwan OH
;
Byeong Hoon CHO
Author Information
1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea. chobh@snu.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Class V resin restoration;
Bonding system;
Retention groove;
Prospective clinical study;
USPHS criteria
- MeSH:
Adhesives;
Adult;
Bicuspid;
Follow-Up Studies;
Germany;
Gyeonggi-do;
Humans;
Korea;
Prospective Studies*;
Public Health;
Tooth;
United States Public Health Service
- From:Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2006;31(4):300-311
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
The purpose of this study is to evaluate prospectively the effect of different bonding systems and retention grooves on the clinical performance of resin restorations in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). Thirty-nine healthy adults who had at least 2 NCCLs in their premolar areas were included in this study. One hundred and fifty teeth were equally assigned to six groups: (A) Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA, 4th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (B) SBMP with retention grooves; (C) BC Plus (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea, 5th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (D) BC Plus with retention grooves; (E) Adper Prompt (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany, 6th generation bonding system) without retention grooves; (F) Adper Prompt with retention grooves. All cavities were filled with a hybrid composite resin, Denfil (Vericom Co., Anyang, Gyeonggido, Korea) by one operator. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and at 6-month recall, according to the modified USPHS (United States Public Health Service) criteria. Additionally, clinical photographs were taken and epoxy resin replicas were made for SEM evaluation. At 6-month recall, there were some differences in the number of alpha ratings among the experimental groups. But, despite the differences in the number of alpha ratings, there was no significant difference among the 3 adhesive systems (p > 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the groups with or without mechanical retention (p > 0.05). Follow-ups for longer periods than 6 months are needed to verify the clinical performance of different bonding systems and retention grooves.
