World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Efficacy of Self-etch Adhesives in the Restoration of Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Controlled Clinical Trial

Pallavi Bhat, Shruti A Patil, Charisma Thimmaiah, Kaushik Shetty, Nithya A Thomas, PA Jayalakshmi

Keywords : Clinical trial, Modified United States Public Health Service criteria, Noncarious cervical lesions, Self-etch

Citation Information : Bhat P, Patil SA, Thimmaiah C, Shetty K, Thomas NA, Jayalakshmi P. Evaluation of Efficacy of Self-etch Adhesives in the Restoration of Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Controlled Clinical Trial. World J Dent 2024; 15 (2):95-101.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2376

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 02-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim and background: Dental adhesives have three-step, two-step, and one-step bonding systems available. Multicomponent bonding systems are being replaced by user-friendly, simplified, consolidated adhesives. The aim of this research was to restore noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) and compare the in vivo therapeutic effectiveness of two self-etch adhesives to etch-and-rinse adhesives over 12 months. Materials and methods: A double-blind, randomized, parallel, longitudinal study with a total of 60 teeth with NCCLs was randomly allocated to three groups: group I—Adper single bond 2, (control) group II—Clearfil SE, group III—G-bond. The teeth were restored with nanocomposite. The restored teeth were scored using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, sensitivity, surface texture, and color match, which were evaluated at three different time intervals, that is, at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for statistical analysis. Results: At baseline, all the restorations of all three groups scored α for all evaluated variables. At 6 months, restorations of both Clearfil SE and G-bond groups showed 100% retention rates, and at 1 year, the retention rates were 95 and 100%, respectively. Slight marginal discoloration and lower marginal adaptation occurred with both the self-etch adhesives; however, none of the results was statistically significant when compared to the control group. Conclusion: Self-etch adhesives showed good clinical performance in comparison to the etch-and-rinse system; however, a longer observation period is required to support the results of this investigation. Clinical significance: Self-etch adhesives showed comparable clinical efficacy to etch-and-rinse adhesives. They are a good alternative to traditional adhesives as they have limited steps and are less technique-sensitive.

PDF Share
  1. Agostini BCE, Antoniazzi RP, Parode JT, et al. Clinical evaluation of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system in class V noncarious composite restorations. Eur J Gen Dent 2020;9(1):23–27. DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_102_19.
  2. Qin W, Lei L, Huang QT, et al. Clinical effectiveness of self-etching adhesives with or without selective enamel etching in noncarious cervical lesions: a systematic review. J Dent Sci 2014;9(4):303–312. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2014.03.002.
  3. Loguercio AD, Bittencourt DD, Baratieri LN, et al. A 36-month evaluation of self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138(4):507–507. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0204
  4. da Costa, Ferri LD, Loguercio AD, et al. Eighteen-month randomized clinical trial on the performance of two etch-and-rinse adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Am J Dent 2014;27(6):312–317.
  5. Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, et al. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017;8(1):1–17. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2017.8.1.001
  6. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, et al. Thirteen-year randomized controlled clinical trial of a two-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2015;31(3):308–314. DOI: 10.1016/
  7. Peumans M, Van de Maele E, de Munck J, et al. Fourteen-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 2023;25(1):147–158. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b4208859
  8. Krithikadatta J. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary dentin bonding agents. J Conserv Dent 2010;13(4):173–183. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.73376
  9. Bayne SC, Schmalz G. Reprinting the classic article on USPHS evaluation methods for measuring the clinical research performance of restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2005;9(4):209–214. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0017-0
  10. Paradzinski CC, De Souza PS, De Oliveira Rocha R, et al. Choosing the criteria for clinical evaluation of composite restorations: an analysis of impact on reliabilty and treatment decision. Pesquisa Brasileira Em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada 2020;20:e5088. DOI: 10.1590/pboci.2020.055
  11. Hasab MS, Elshehawy TM, Rizk EN, et al. Two-year clinical performance of four adhesive strategies. J Dent Res Rev 2016;3(1):17. DOI: 10.4103/2348-2915.180111
  12. Van Meerbeek B, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, et al. A randomized controlled study evaluating the effectiveness of a two-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective phosphoric-acid etching of enamel. Dent Mater 2005;21(4):375–383. DOI: 10.1016/
  13. El Gedaily M, Attin T, Wiedemeier DB, et al. Impact of different etching strategies on margin integrity of conservative composite restorations in demineralized enamel. Materials (Basel) 2020;13(20). DOI: 10.3390/ma13204500
  14. Brackett MG, Dib A, Franco G, et al. Two-year clinical performance of Clearfil SE and Clearfil S3 in restoration of unabraded non-carious class V lesions. Oper Dent 2010;35(3):273–278. DOI: 10.2341/09-266-C
  15. Loguercio AD, Raffo J, Bassani F, et al. 24-month clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive applied using a rubbing motion. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15(4):589–596. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0408-8
  16. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, et al. Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent 2018;69:60–69. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.09.011
  17. Moretto SG, Russo EM, Carvalho RC, et al. 3-year clinical effectiveness of one-step adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 2013;41(8):675–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.05.016
  18. Miranda MEDSNG, Silva EMD, Oliveira MF, et al. Resin-dentin bond stability of etch-and-rinse adhesive systems with different concentrations of MMP inhibitor GM1489. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28:e20190499. DOI: 10.1590/1678-7757-2019-0499
  19. van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater 2013;29(11):e271–e280. DOI: 10.1016/
  20. Perdigão J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) dentin adhesion - not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev 2020;56(1):190–207. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2020.08.004
  21. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, et al. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:1–11. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.05.009
  22. Al-Shami AM, Alshami MA, Al-Kholani AI, et al. Color stability of nanohybrid and microhybrid composites after immersion in common coloring beverages at different times: a laboratory study. BDJ Open 2023;9(1):39. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-023-00161-9
  23. Gehlot PM, Sudeep P, Manjunath V, et al. Influence of various desensitizing mouthrinses and simulated toothbrushing on surface roughness and microhardness of tetric N-ceram bulk-fill resin composite: an in vitro study and scanning electron microscope analysis. Eur J Dent 2022;16(4):820–827. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1739547
  24. Ma KS, Wang LT, Blatz MB. Efficacy of adhesive strategies for restorative dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials over 12 months of follow-up. J Prosthodont Res 2023;67(1):35–44. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPR_D_21_00279
  25. Hayashi M, Wilson NH. Marginal deterioration as a predictor of failure of a posterior composite. Eur J Oral Sci 2003;111(2):155–162. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0722.2003.00020.x
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.