Comparative evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive in class II bulk-fill restorations: A 48-month randomized controlled trial

YAZICI A. R., Tekce A. U., KÜTÜK Z. B.

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, vol.117, 2022 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 117
  • Publication Date: 2022
  • Doi Number: 10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103921
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, Aerospace Database, CAB Abstracts, CINAHL, Communication Abstracts, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Metadex, Veterinary Science Database, Civil Engineering Abstracts
  • Keywords: Universal adhesive, Clinical trial, Bulk-fill, Self-etch, Etch-and-rinse, BONDING PERFORMANCE
  • Hacettepe University Affiliated: Yes


Objectives: To compare the clinical performance of the universal adhesive used in etch-and-rinse (ER) and selfetch (SE) adhesive strategies for 48-month in class II bulk-fill restorations. Methods: A total of 84 class II bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill) restorations were placed in 35 participants by one operator using the universal adhesive's (Adhese Universal VivaPen) etch-and-rinse or selfetch mode randomly. The restorations were evaluated by two calibrated examiners at baseline and after 6-, 12-, 24-, 36- and 48-month using modified USPHS criteria. The comparison of the two adhesive strategies for each evaluation criteria was performed with the chi-square test. The baseline scores were compared with those at the recalls using the Friedman and Cochran's Q-test (p < .05). Results: At 48-month, 74 restorations were evaluated in 30 participants (recall rate: 85.7%). Marginal discoloration was statistically more frequent in SE approach (p < .05), whereas no significant difference was observed between the two strategies in terms of marginal adaptation (p > .05). There were statistically significant differences between the baseline and 48-month recall in the SE group in terms of marginal adaptation and discoloration (p < .05). In ER group, significant differences were found between baseline and 48-month only for marginal adaptation (p < .05). None of the restorations showed post-operative sensitivity. Secondary caries was observed in one restoration from SE group. Conclusions: The tested bulk-fill restorative exhibited better clinical performance only in terms of marginal discoloration when the universal adhesive was used with ER strategy. Clinical relevance: Though ER approach of the tested universal adhesive appears to be advantageous in terms of marginal discoloration, both adhesive strategies had similar impact on the clinical success of bulk-fill resin restorations.