Dentin adhesive materials for restoration of cervical erosions. Two- and three-year clinical observations.

Different adhesive systems · used in cervical erosions without cavity preparation were evaluated. The material comprised three groups of patients who received a total of 146 restorations placed by the same operator (JK). Each patient within a group received the same number of restorations with two different types of materials. Type 1: a capsulated glass-ionomer cement (FujiCap 2). Type 2: no acid etching of the cavosurface enamel, application of a dentin adhesive (Gluma Bonding System) and restoration with a microfilled composite (Pekalux). Type 3: same material and procedure as type 2, but with acid etching of enamel. Type 4: acid etching followed by a dentin adhesive (Johnson & Johnson Dentin Bonding Agent) and restoration with a microfilled composite (Certain). Type 5: same procedure as type 3 but with use of a minifilled composite (Lumifor). Type 6: acid etching followed by a dentin adhesive (Scotchbond) and a minifilled composite (P-30). Direct clinical examination based on the USPHS-system was made immediately after polishing and 6, 12 and 18 months until 24 months (Types 5,6) or 36 months (Types 1,2,3,4). All teeth responded positively to electric pulp testing throughout the observation period and no adverse effects on the gingivae were found. All of the Type 1,3 and 5 restorations evaluated remained in situ throughout the observation period. Minor marginal fractures and discolorations were observed in all types of restorations. The minifilled composites performed significantly better in these respects compared with the microfilled composites.