Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results

Background The aim of this study was to compare after 24 months the clinical performance of cervical restorations placed with the use of an etch-and-rinse and an all-in-one adhesive. Methods Twenty-four patients with at least one pair of non-carious cervical lesions participated in this study. One hundred and twenty-three cervical lesions were restored (62 etch-and-rinse adhesive, Solobond M; 61 all-in-one adhesive, Futurabond NR). A nanohybrid resin composite, Grandio, was used as the restorative material. Restorations were evaluated according to modified USPHS criteria by two independent examiners. The survival rates of the restorations were calculated by the Kaplan-Meier estimator and log-rank test. The restorations in each category were compared using the Pearson chi-square test, while the performance of restorations at the baseline and at each recall time was evaluated by McNemar's test (p<0.05). Results The recall rate of patients was 100%. The retention rates were 82% and 75% at 6months and 77% and 62% at 12months for Solobond M and Futurabond NR, respectively. At the 24-month recall, the retention rate was 69% for Solobond M and 49% for Futurabond NR, and this difference was statistically significant (p<0.05). No statistically significant difference was found for colour match, marginal staining, or marginal adaptation between the adhesives (p>0.05). None of the restorations had secondary caries, loss of anatomical form, or surface texture changes. Conclusions Cervical restorations placed with an etch-and-rinse adhesive showed higher retention than an all-in-one adhesive.