Figure 1

Cavity preparation of experimental tooth.

Figure 2

Deterioration of the restorations - An example of "marginal discoloration" observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline, (B) 6-month recall.

Figure 3

Scanning electron micrographs of the interface between tooth and restoration - An example of marginal breakdown observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline: continuous margin is observed, (B) 6-month recall: breakdown of incisal margin is observed (arrow), (C) higher magnification of the area pointed by arrow in Figure 3-(B).

Table 1

Design of experimental groups (Number of teeth in each group = 25)

Table 2

Bonding procedures in each group

Table 3

Modified USPHS criteria used for the clinical evaluation

Table 4

Number of teeth in each rating of the modified USPHS criteria

^†These columns present the number of teeth included in each rating for each criterion.

^‡This row presents the ratio of the number of teeth not showing alpha rating to the total number of teeth included in each group.

^*The number of teeth in each group was 25 at baseline. One tooth from group E (Adper prompt without groove) was dropped out at 6-month recall, because its restoration was replaced with a new restoration using SBMP due to persistent hypersensitivity.

Table 5

Frequency of undesirable changes in each criterion between baseline and 6-month recall

^*The other criteria (retention, secondary caries, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity) are not included in this table, because all the teeth were rated alpha in these criteria at 6-month recall.

Table 6

Marginal discoloration & marginal adaptation at 6-month recall

This work was supported by a grant from the Ministry of Health and Welfare of Korea (Grant No. 03-PJ1-PG1-CH09-0001).

Figure 1

Cavity preparation of experimental tooth.

Figure 2

Deterioration of the restorations - An example of "marginal discoloration" observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline, (B) 6-month recall.

Figure 3

Scanning electron micrographs of the interface between tooth and restoration - An example of marginal breakdown observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline: continuous margin is observed, (B) 6-month recall: breakdown of incisal margin is observed (arrow), (C) higher magnification of the area pointed by arrow in Figure 3-(B).

Table 1

Design of experimental groups (Number of teeth in each group = 25)

Table 2

Bonding procedures in each group

Table 3

Modified USPHS criteria used for the clinical evaluation

Table 4

Number of teeth in each rating of the modified USPHS criteria

^†These columns present the number of teeth included in each rating for each criterion.

^‡This row presents the ratio of the number of teeth not showing alpha rating to the total number of teeth included in each group.

^*The number of teeth in each group was 25 at baseline. One tooth from group E (Adper prompt without groove) was dropped out at 6-month recall, because its restoration was replaced with a new restoration using SBMP due to persistent hypersensitivity.

Table 5

Frequency of undesirable changes in each criterion between baseline and 6-month recall

^*The other criteria (retention, secondary caries, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity) are not included in this table, because all the teeth were rated alpha in these criteria at 6-month recall.

Table 6

Marginal discoloration & marginal adaptation at 6-month recall

REFERENCES

• 1. Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Retention of microfilled and hybrid resin-based composite in noncarious Class 5 lesions: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 26-30.PubMed
• 2. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 1994;22: 195-207.ArticlePubMed
• 3. Bader JD, Levitch LC, Shugars DA, Heymann HO, McClure F. How dentists classified and treated non-carious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;124: 46-54.ArticlePubMed
• 4. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27: 117-123.PubMed
• 5. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent. 1993;18: 130-137.PubMed
• 6. Smales RJ, Gerke DC. Clinical evaluation of light-cured anterior resin composites over periods of up to 4 years. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 208-212.PubMed
• 7. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3: 45-64.PubMed
• 8. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 2001;ed 2. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing; 396.
• 9. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3: 237-245.PubMed
• 10. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent. 2003;16: 329-334.PubMed
• 11. Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23: 481-486.PubMed
• 12. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999;27: 523-530.ArticlePubMed
• 13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002;30: 371-382.ArticlePubMed
• 14. Borcic J, Anic I, Smojver I, Catic A, Miletic I, Ribaric SP. 3D finite element model and cervical lesion formation in normal occlusion and in malocclusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32: 504-510.ArticlePubMed
• 15. Tanaka M, Naito T, Yokota M, Kohno M. Finite element analysis of the possible mechanism of cervical lesion formation by occlusal force. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30: 60-67.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 16. McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129: 593-599.ArticlePubMed
• 17. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater. 1995;11: 117-125.ArticlePubMed
• 18. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79: 1385-1391.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 19. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal PJ. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 274-278.PubMed
• 20. Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N. two-year clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002;14: 296-302.ArticlePubMed
• 21. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1973;87: 369-377.ArticlePubMed
• 22. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent. 2002;30: 83-90.ArticlePubMed
• 23. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing performance of two one-step adhesive systems in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6: 211-219.PubMed
• 24. Yoshida E, Uno S. Voids formation along the bonding interface between a smeared dentin surface and all-in-one adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2004;23: 643-649.ArticlePubMed
• 25. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent. 2004;17: 315-322.PubMed
• 26. Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR, Cordeiro HJ, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent. 2005;18: 135-140.PubMed
• 27. Duke ES, Robbins JW, Snyder DS. Clinical evaluation of a dentinal adhesive system: three-year results. Quintessence Int. 1991;22: 889-895.PubMed
• 28. Duke ES, Lindemuth J. Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent. 1991;4: 241-246.PubMed
• 29. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 315-317.PubMed
• 30. Tilliss TS, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Dent Hyg. 2002;76: 296-310.PubMed

Tables & Figures

Figure 1

Cavity preparation of experimental tooth.

Figure 2

Deterioration of the restorations - An example of "marginal discoloration" observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline, (B) 6-month recall.

Figure 3

Scanning electron micrographs of the interface between tooth and restoration - An example of marginal breakdown observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline: continuous margin is observed, (B) 6-month recall: breakdown of incisal margin is observed (arrow), (C) higher magnification of the area pointed by arrow in Figure 3-(B).

Table 1

Design of experimental groups (Number of teeth in each group = 25)

Table 2

Bonding procedures in each group

Table 3

Modified USPHS criteria used for the clinical evaluation

Table 4

Number of teeth in each rating of the modified USPHS criteria

^†These columns present the number of teeth included in each rating for each criterion.

^‡This row presents the ratio of the number of teeth not showing alpha rating to the total number of teeth included in each group.

^*The number of teeth in each group was 25 at baseline. One tooth from group E (Adper prompt without groove) was dropped out at 6-month recall, because its restoration was replaced with a new restoration using SBMP due to persistent hypersensitivity.

Table 5

Frequency of undesirable changes in each criterion between baseline and 6-month recall

^*The other criteria (retention, secondary caries, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity) are not included in this table, because all the teeth were rated alpha in these criteria at 6-month recall.

Table 6

Marginal discoloration & marginal adaptation at 6-month recall

Figure 1

Cavity preparation of experimental tooth.

Figure 2

Deterioration of the restorations - An example of "marginal discoloration" observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline, (B) 6-month recall.

Figure 3

Scanning electron micrographs of the interface between tooth and restoration - An example of marginal breakdown observed in group E (Adper Prompt, no retention groove), (A) baseline: continuous margin is observed, (B) 6-month recall: breakdown of incisal margin is observed (arrow), (C) higher magnification of the area pointed by arrow in Figure 3-(B).

Table 1

Design of experimental groups (Number of teeth in each group = 25)

Table 2

Bonding procedures in each group

Table 3

Modified USPHS criteria used for the clinical evaluation

Table 4

Number of teeth in each rating of the modified USPHS criteria

^†These columns present the number of teeth included in each rating for each criterion.

^‡This row presents the ratio of the number of teeth not showing alpha rating to the total number of teeth included in each group.

^*The number of teeth in each group was 25 at baseline. One tooth from group E (Adper prompt without groove) was dropped out at 6-month recall, because its restoration was replaced with a new restoration using SBMP due to persistent hypersensitivity.

Table 5

Frequency of undesirable changes in each criterion between baseline and 6-month recall

^*The other criteria (retention, secondary caries, wear-anatomic form, postoperative sensitivity) are not included in this table, because all the teeth were rated alpha in these criteria at 6-month recall.

Table 6

Marginal discoloration & marginal adaptation at 6-month recall

REFERENCES

• 1. Browning WD, Brackett WW, Gilpatrick RO. Retention of microfilled and hybrid resin-based composite in noncarious Class 5 lesions: a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 1999;24: 26-30.PubMed
• 2. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO. Non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 1994;22: 195-207.ArticlePubMed
• 3. Bader JD, Levitch LC, Shugars DA, Heymann HO, McClure F. How dentists classified and treated non-carious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc. 1993;124: 46-54.ArticlePubMed
• 4. Mjor IA, Shen C, Eliasson ST, Richter S. Placement and replacement of restorations in general dental practice in Iceland. Oper Dent. 2002;27: 117-123.PubMed
• 5. Smales RJ, Webster DA. Restoration deterioration related to later failure. Oper Dent. 1993;18: 130-137.PubMed
• 6. Smales RJ, Gerke DC. Clinical evaluation of light-cured anterior resin composites over periods of up to 4 years. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 208-212.PubMed
• 7. Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3: 45-64.PubMed
• 8. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry: A Contemporary Approach. 2001;ed 2. Illinois: Quintessence Publishing; 396.
• 9. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3: 237-245.PubMed
• 10. Inoue S, Vargas MA, Abe Y, Yoshida Y, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Sano H, Van Meerbeek B. Microtensile bond strength of eleven contemporary adhesives to enamel. Am J Dent. 2003;16: 329-334.PubMed
• 11. Agostini FG, Kaaden C, Powers JM. Bond strength of self-etching primers to enamel and dentin of primary teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2001;23: 481-486.PubMed
• 12. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999;27: 523-530.ArticlePubMed
• 13. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent. 2002;30: 371-382.ArticlePubMed
• 14. Borcic J, Anic I, Smojver I, Catic A, Miletic I, Ribaric SP. 3D finite element model and cervical lesion formation in normal occlusion and in malocclusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2005;32: 504-510.ArticlePubMed
• 15. Tanaka M, Naito T, Yokota M, Kohno M. Finite element analysis of the possible mechanism of cervical lesion formation by occlusal force. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30: 60-67.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 16. McCoy RB, Anderson MH, Lepe X, Johnson GH. Clinical success of class V composite resin restorations without mechanical retention. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998;129: 593-599.ArticlePubMed
• 17. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, Yoshiyama M, Carvalho RM. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a review. Dent Mater. 1995;11: 117-125.ArticlePubMed
• 18. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res. 2000;79: 1385-1391.ArticlePubMedPDF
• 19. Wucher M, Grobler SR, Senekal PJ. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite (sandwich) in class II restorations. Am J Dent. 2002;15: 274-278.PubMed
• 20. Gordan VV, Mjor IA, Vazquez O, Watson RE, Wilson N. two-year clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2002;14: 296-302.ArticlePubMed
• 21. Ryge G, Snyder M. Evaluating the clinical quality of restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1973;87: 369-377.ArticlePubMed
• 22. Pashley EL, Agee KA, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of one versus two applications of an unfilled, all-in-one adhesive on dentine bonding. J Dent. 2002;30: 83-90.ArticlePubMed
• 23. Uno S, Abo T, Tanaka T, Sano H. In vitro sealing performance of two one-step adhesive systems in cervical cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6: 211-219.PubMed
• 24. Yoshida E, Uno S. Voids formation along the bonding interface between a smeared dentin surface and all-in-one adhesives. Dent Mater J. 2004;23: 643-649.ArticlePubMed
• 25. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Garcia-Godoy F, Yiu CK. Single-step, self-etch adhesives behave as permeable membranes after polymerization. Part II. Silver tracer penetration evidence. Am J Dent. 2004;17: 315-322.PubMed
• 26. Perdigao J, Carmo AR, Anauate-Netto C, Amore R, Lewgoy HR, Cordeiro HJ, Dutra-Correa M, Castilhos N. Clinical performance of a self-etching adhesive at 18 months. Am J Dent. 2005;18: 135-140.PubMed
• 27. Duke ES, Robbins JW, Snyder DS. Clinical evaluation of a dentinal adhesive system: three-year results. Quintessence Int. 1991;22: 889-895.PubMed
• 28. Duke ES, Lindemuth J. Variability of clinical dentin substrates. Am J Dent. 1991;4: 241-246.PubMed
• 29. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent. 1992;5: 315-317.PubMed
• 30. Tilliss TS, Keating JG. Understanding and managing dentin hypersensitivity. J Dent Hyg. 2002;76: 296-310.PubMed

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by  

• Comparison of marginal microleakage between low and high flowable resins in class V cavity
  Sang-Bae Bae, Young-Gon Cho, Myeong-Seon Lee
  Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.2009; 34(6): 477.     CrossRef