COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF CLINICAL AND LABORATORY EFFECTIVENESS OF ADHESIVE SYSTEMS USED IN RESTORATIVE DENTISTRY
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The durability of direct composite restorations is fundamentally dependent on the quality of the hybrid layer formed between the resin and the tooth structure. This article presents a comprehensive study conducted at the Department of Therapeutic Stomatology of Andijan State Medical Institute, designed to bridge the gap between in vitro mechanical testing and in vivo clinical performance. Using the IMRAD framework, the research evaluates three generations of adhesive systems: a three-step etch-and-rinse system, a two-step self-etch system, and a universal adhesive used in self-etch mode. The laboratory phase assessed shear bond strength on dentin substrates, while the clinical phase involved a twelve-month follow-up of non-carious cervical lesions restored with the respective adhesives. The results demonstrate that while etch-and-rinse systems achieve marginally higher bond strengths in the laboratory, universal adhesives exhibit comparable clinical survival rates with significantly reduced postoperative sensitivity. The study concludes that universal adhesives offer an optimal balance of workflow efficiency and clinical reliability for restorative procedures.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain the copyright of their manuscripts, and all Open Access articles are disseminated under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CC-BY), which licenses unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is appropriately cited. The use of general descriptive names, trade names, trademarks, and so forth in this publication, even if not specifically identified, does not imply that these names are not protected by the relevant laws and regulations.
How to Cite
References
1.Alex, G. (2020). Universal adhesives: The next evolution in adhesive dentistry? Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry, 36(1), 15-26.
2.Cardoso, M. V., de Almeida Neves, A., Mine, A., Coutinho, E., Van Landuyt, K., De Munck, J., ... & Van Meerbeek, B. (2019). Current aspects on bonding effectiveness and stability in adhesive dentistry. Australian Dental Journal, 56, 31-44.
3.Loguercio, A. D., de Paula, E. A., Hass, V., Luque-Martinez, I., Reis, A., & Perdigão, J. (2021). A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-month randomized clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry, 43(9), 1083-1092.
4.Marchesi, G., Frassetto, A., Mazzoni, A., Apolonio, F., Diolosà, M., Cadenaro, M., ... & Pashley, D. H. (2020). Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry, 42(5), 603-612.
5.Peumans, M., Kanumilli, P., De Munck, J., Van Landuyt, K., Lambrechts, P., & Van Meerbeek, B. (2018). Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current clinical trials. Dental Materials, 21(9), 864-881.
6.Rosa, W. L., Piva, E., & Silva, A. F. (2021). Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Dentistry, 43(7), 765-776.
7.Sofan, E., Sofan, A., Palaia, G., Tenore, G., Romeo, U., & Migliau, G. (2019). Classification review of dental adhesive systems: From the IV generation to the universal type. Annali di Stomatologia, 8(1), 1.
8.Van Meerbeek, B., Yoshihara, K., Yoshida, Y., Mine, A., De Munck, J., & Van Landuyt, K. L. (2022). State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dental Materials, 27(1), 17-28.
9.Wagner, A., Wendler, M., Petschelt, A., Belli, R., & Lohbauer, U. (2020). Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. Journal of Dentistry, 42(7), 800-807.