 |
| Title |
Effectiveness of Simplified Adhesive Systems |
| Clinical Question |
In the restoration of cervical non-carious class 5 lesions are adhesives with a simplified application procedure as effective as traditional three step etch and rinse adhesives? |
| Clinical Bottom Line |
Effectiveness is lost as the steps in an adhesive system become more simplified. S(See Comments on the CAT below) |
| Best Evidence |
(you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link) |
| PubMed ID |
Author / Year |
Patient Group |
Study type
(level of evidence) |
| #1) 16009415 | Peumans/2005 | Review of many different patient groups with non-carious Class V lesions. | Systematic Review | | Key results | For treating cervical non-carious class 5 restorations, the three step etch and rinse adhesive system shows the best clinical effectiveness as opposed to adhesive systems with simplified application procedures. The two-step self-etch adhesives approach the gold standard (three-step etch-and-rinse) regarding clinical effectiveness. The two step etch and rinse adhesive was less favorable than three step etch and rinse and the two step self etch. The one-step self-etch adhesives showed an insufficient clinical performance. | |
| Evidence Search |
#11Search #9 Limits: Systematic Reviews12:11:2979#9Search "Dental Cements"[Mesh]12:10:2417267 |
Comments on
The Evidence |
The best available evidence was a systematic review which examined the literature from January 1998 through May 2004 for university-centered clinical trials which tested the clinical effectiveness of adhesives in non-carious class-V lesions. |
| Applicability |
For the restoration of cervical non-carious class 5 restorations the three step etch and rinse adhesive system shows the best clinical effectiveness as opposed to adhesive systems with simplified application procedures. Both the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesives and two-step self-etch adhesives showed a clinically reliable and predictably good clinical performance. |
| Specialty/Discipline |
(General Dentistry) (Restorative Dentistry) |
| Keywords |
adhesive, Class V lesions, dental cements, etchant, caries
|
| ID# |
485 |
| Date of submission: |
01/07/2010 |
| E-mail |
hogans@uthscsa.edu |
| Author |
Daniel C. Brawley |
| Co-author(s) |
Steven Hogan |
| Co-author(s) e-mail |
|
| Faculty mentor/Co-author |
Barry K. Norling, MS, PhD |
| Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail |
NORLING@uthscsa.edu |
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?) |
post a rationale |
| None available | |
|
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS', FACULTY, RESIDENTS and/or STUDENTS COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs) |
post a comment |
by Matthew Boothe (San Antonio,TX) on 04/09/2012
A PubMed search was conducted in April 2012, and the results of the published material in this CAT are consistent with recent clinical trials. It also appears to be the most recent systematic review available. | |
|
|
