ABSTRACT Restorative treatment is very challenging for non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) due to functional and structural complexities. The purpose of this randomised controlled trial (RCT) was to evaluate the clinical performance of nanocomposite restorations bonded using universal adhesive in self-etch mode with and without air abrasive surface treatment for NCCLs. A total of 70 NCCLs, from a group of consenting patients who fulfilled the inclusion criteria, were recruited for the study. The study was carried out following CONSORT guidelines. Block randomisation was done for equal allocation of lesions into; Group 1 (surface treatment with alumina air abrasion) and Group 2 (control group without mechanical surface treatment). The lesions were restored with nanocomposite using a universal bonding agent in self-etch mode. The clinical performance of the restorations was evaluated by two examiners using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. A Chi-square test was performed for inter-group comparison. Cochran’s Q test and Dunn’s post hoc analysis were used for intra-group comparison. The inter-group comparison revealed no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control group for all the parameters assessed. With the intra-group analysis, it was found that there was a significant decrease in the performance of the restorations concerning marginal staining, marginal adaptation and surface texture during the evaluation period (p < 0.05). However, all of them demonstrated clinically acceptable performance. According to the results of this RCT, it was concluded that airborne particle abrasion of NCCLs did not improve the clinical performance of nanocomposite resin bonded using universal adhesive.
Composite Resins ; Air Abrasion, Dental

OBJECTIVETo evaluate the clinical effect of the 65 µm glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) and ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase.

METHODSTwenty-three patients at the age of 28-72 (8 males and 15 females) who were systematically healthy were involved in this study. According to splitting-mouth design, one side of a mouth was randomly assigned to the experiment group with 65 µm GPAP therapy, while the other side was the control group with ultrasonic scaling therapy. The clinical parameters including probing depth (PD), bleeding index (BI), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PLI), staining index (SI) were recorded. The patients' perception of treatment was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS). The treatment time was recorded and compared between the two groups.

RESULTSBoth of the two methods had good clinical effects. PD, BI and PLI of the two groups 12 weeks after treatment were better than those at baseline (P < 0.01). There was no significant deference between the two methods at baseline and at the 12 weeks after treatment. The VAS value of experiment group was better than that of control group (1.7 ± 1.3 vs. 3.3 ± 1.8, P < 0.01). The treatment time of experiment group was also shorter than that of control group [(192.7 ± 82.7) s vs. (345.4 ± 116.9) s, P < 0.01].

CONCLUSIONSThe results indicate that 65 µm GPAP may be as effective as the ultrasonic scaling during periodontal maintenance phase. 65 µm GPAP had the advantage of more comfort and less time consuming.

Adult ; Aged ; Air Abrasion, Dental ; methods ; Dental Plaque Index ; Dental Polishing ; methods ; Dental Scaling ; methods ; Female ; Gingival Recession ; diagnosis ; Glycine ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Periodontics ; Powders ; Random Allocation ; Ultrasonic Therapy ; methods ; Visual Analog Scale