12-Year Clinical Evaluation of a Dual-Cured Hydrophilic Dental Adhesive

Objectives: The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the performance of a fluoride-releasing dual-cured hydrophilic dental adhesive used with or without dentin acid-etching to restore non-carious cervical lesions. Methods: One hundred lesions were characterized preoperatively relative to height, width, depth, volume, occlusion, enamel margin (%), internal angle, and degree of sclerosis. The exposed walls of the lesion were roughened with a diamond instrument. No retentive grooves or bevels were used. Lesions were randomly assigned to two treatment groups (max.3/group/subject): In Group A (enamel etch only), the enamel was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds; in Group B (enamel and dentin etch), the enamel was etched as in Group A, and the dentin was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds. After acid treatment, all lesions were treated with a light-cured primer and a dual-cured adhesive (OptiBond, Kerr). The preparations were restored with a light-cured composite (Herculite XRV, Kerr), and evaluated by masked evaluators at baseline and at 12 years post-insertion for interfacial staining, secondary caries, marginal adaptation, post-operative sensitivity, and retention using modified USPHS criteria (Alfa=excellent, Bravo=clinically acceptable, Charlie=clinically unacceptable). Data were analyzed using two-sample t-tests and Pearson's Chi-Square (p=0.05). Results: Lesion characteristics were similar at baseline. All baseline scores were Alfa for both treatment groups. At 12 years, the recall rates were 54% (27 restorations) for Group A and 38% (19 restorations) for Group B. Two retention failures were noted in Group A, and three in Group B, for an overall retention rate of 89%. No statistically significant differences were detected between the two treatment groups for retention or any of the other evaluation criteria. Conclusion: The 12-year clinical performance, including retention, of a dual-cured hydrophilic dental adhesive was excellent and was not affected by dentin acid etching. Supported by Kerr.