Bond strength tests of dental adhesive systems and their correlation with clinical results : a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the variability of bond strength test results of adhesive systems (AS) and to correlate the results with clinical parameters of clinical studies investigating cervical restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Regarding the clinical studies, the internal database which had previously been used for a meta-analysis on cervical restorations was updated with clinical studies published between 2008 and 2012 by searching the PubMed and SCOPUS databases. PubMed and the International Association for Dental Research abstracts online were searched for laboratory studies on microtensile, macrotensile and macroshear bond strength tests. The inclusion criteria were (1) dentin, (2) testing of at least four adhesive systems, (3) same diameter of composite and (4) 24h of water storage prior to testing. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins, and a clinical index comprising the three parameters by weighing them. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated for both, the laboratory and the clinical studies. The variability was assessed by calculating a ratio of variances, dividing the variance among the estimated bonding effects obtained in the linear mixed models by the sum of all variance components estimated in these models. RESULTS: Thirty-two laboratory studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria comprising 183 experiments. Of those, 86 used the microtensile test evaluating 22 adhesive systems (AS). Twenty-seven used the macrotensile test with 17 AS, and 70 used the macroshear test with 24 AS. For 28 AS the results from clinical studies were available. Microtensile and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.66, p=0.007) were moderately correlated and also microtensile and macroshear (Spearman rho=0.51, p=0.03) but not macroshear and macrotensile (Spearman rho=0.34, p=0.22). The effect of the adhesive system was significant for microtensile and macroshear (p<0.001) but not for macrotensile. The effect of the adhesive system could explain 36% of the variability of the microtensile test, 27% of the macrotensile and 33% of the macroshear test. For the clinical trials, about 49% of the variability of retained restorations could be explained by the adhesive system. With respect to the correlation between bond strength tests and clinical parameters, only a moderate correlation between micro- and macrotensile test results and marginal discoloration was demonstrated. However, no correlation between these tests and a retention loss or marginal integrity was shown. The correlation improved when more studies were included compared to assessing only one study. SIGNIFICANCE: The high variability of bond strength test results highlights the need to establish individual acceptance levels for a given test institute. The weak correlation of bond-strength test results with clinical parameters leads to the conclusion that one should not rely solely on bond strength tests to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system but one should conduct other laboratory tests like tests on the marginal adaptation of fillings in extracted teeth and the retention loss of restorations in non-retentive cavities after artificial aging.

Marginal adaptation in vitro and clinical outcome of Class V restorations

OBJECTIVES: We examined the correlation between the quantitative margin analysis of two laboratory test methods (Berlin, Zurich) and the clinical outcome in Class V restorations. METHODS: Prospective clinical studies with an observation period of at least 18 months were searched in the literature, for which laboratory data were also available. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration, detectable margins and secondary caries. Forty-four clinical studies matched the inclusion criteria, including 34 adhesive systems for which laboratory data were also present. For both laboratory test methods and the clinical studies, an index was formulated to better compare the in vitro and in vivo results. Linear mixed models which included a random study effect were calculated. As most clinical data were available for 12 and 24 months, the main analysis was restricted to these recall intervals. RESULTS: The comparative analysis revealed a weak correlation between the clinical index and both in vitro indices. The correlation was statistically significant for the Berlin method but not for the Zurich method and only present if studies were compared which used the same composite in the in vitro and in vivo study. When defining specific cut-off values, the prognosis for the good clinical performance of an adhesive system based on in vitro results was 78% (Berlin) or 100% (Zurich). For poor performance it was 67% and 60%, respectively. No correlation was found between both in vitro methods. SIGNIFICANCE: The surrogate parameter "marginal adaptation" of restorations placed in extracted teeth has a mediocre value to predict the clinical performance of an adhesive system in cervical cavities. The composite is an important factor for a successful prediction. The comparison between in vitro/in vivo is sometimes hampered by the great variability of clinical results on the same adhesive system.

Clinical performance of cervical restorations: a meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To carry out a meta-analysis in order to assess the influencing factors on retention loss and marginal discoloration of cervical restorations made of composites and glass ionomer (derivates). METHODS: The literature was searched for prospective clinical studies on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months. RESULTS: Fifty clinical studies involving 40 adhesive systems matched the inclusion criteria. On average, 10% of the cervical fillings were lost and 24% exhibited marginal discoloration after 3 years. The variability ranged from 0% to 50% for retention loss and from 0% to 74% for marginal discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries was detected. When linear mixed models with a study and experiment effect were used, the analysis revealed that the adhesive/restorative class had the most significant influence, with 2-step self-etching adhesive systems performing best and 1-step self-etching adhesive systems performing worst; 3-step etch-and-rinse systems, glass ionomers/resin-modified glass ionomers, 2-step etch-and-rinse systems and polyacid-modified resin composites were ranked in between. Restorations placed in teeth whose dentin/enamel had been prepared/roughened showed a statistically significant higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin (p<0.05). Beveling of the enamel and the type of isolation used (rubberdam/cotton rolls) had no significant influence. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of cervical restorations is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system used and/or the adhesive class to which the system belonged and whether the dentin/enamel is prepared or not. 2-Step self-etching- and 3-step etch&rinse systems shall be chosen over 1-step self-etching systems and glass ionomer derivates. The dentin (and enamel) surface shall be roughened before placement of the restoration.

Pooling of dentin microtensile bond strength data improves clinical correlation.

Purpose: To evaluate whether the correlation between in vitro bond strength data and estimated clinical retention rates of cervical restorations after two years depends on pooled data obtained from multicenter studies or single-test data. Materials and Methods: Pooled mean data for six dentin adhesive systems (Adper Prompt L-Pop, Clearfil SE, OptiBond FL, Prime & Bond NT, Single Bond, and Scotchbond Multipurpose) and four laboratory methods (macroshear, microshear, macrotensile and microtensile bond strength test) (Scherrer et al, 2010) were correlated to estimated pooled two-year retention rates of Class V restorations using the same adhesive systems. For bond strength data from a single test institute, the literature search in SCOPUS revealed one study that tested all six adhesive systems (microtensile) and two that tested five of the six systems (microtensile, macroshear). The correlation was determined with a database designed to perform a meta-analysis on the clinical performance of cervical restorations (Heintze et al, 2010). The clinical data were pooled and adjusted in a linear mixed model, taking the study effect, dentin preparation, type of isolation and bevelling of enamel into account. A regression analysis was carried out to evaluate the correlation between clinical and laboratory findings. Results: The results of the regression analysis for the pooled data revealed that only the macrotensile (adjusted R2 = 0.86) and microtensile tests (adjusted R2 = 0.64), but not the shear and the microshear tests, correlated well with the clinical findings. As regards the data from a single-test institute, the correlation was not statistically significant. Conclusion: Macrotensile and microtensile bond strength tests showed an adequate correlation with the retention rate of cervical restorations after two years. Bond strength tests should be carried out by different operators and/or research institutes to determine the reliability and technique sensitivity of the material under investigation.

Correlation between microtensile bond strength data and clinical outcome of Class V restorations.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the results of resin-dentin microtensile bond strength (µTBS) is correlated with the outcome parameters of clinical studies on non-retentive Class V restorations. METHODS: Resin-dentin µTBS data were obtained from one test center; the in vitro tests were all performed by the same operator. The µTBS testing was performed 8h after bonding and after 6 months of storing the specimens in water. Pre-test failures (PTFs) of specimens were included in the analysis, attributing them a value of 1MPa. Prospective clinical studies on cervical restorations (Class V) with an observation period of at least 18 months were searched in the literature. The clinical outcome variables were retention loss, marginal discoloration and marginal integrity. Furthermore, an index was formulated to be better able to compare the laboratory and clinical results. Estimates of adhesive effects in a linear mixed model were used to summarize the clinical performance of each adhesive between 12 and 36 months. Spearman correlations between these clinical performances and the µTBS values were calculated subsequently. RESULTS: Thirty-six clinical studies with 15 adhesive/restorative systems for which µTBS data were also available were included in the statistical analysis. In general 3-step and 2-step etch-and-rinse systems showed higher bond strength values than the 2-step/3-step self-etching systems, which, however, produced higher values than the 1-step self-etching and the resin modified glass ionomer systems. Prolonged water storage of specimens resulted in a significant decrease of the mean bond strength values in 5 adhesive systems (Wilcoxon, p<0.05). There was a significant correlation between µTBS values both after 8h and 6 months of storage and marginal discoloration (r=0.54 and r=0.67, respectively). However, the same correlation was not found between µTBS values and the retention rate, clinical index or marginal integrity. SIGNIFICANCE: As µTBS data of adhesive systems, especially after water storage for 6 months, showed a good correlation with marginal discoloration in short-term clinical Class V restorations, longitudinal clinical trials should explore whether early marginal staining is predictive for future retention loss in non-carious cervical restorations.

Clinical effectiveness of direct class II restorations: a meta-analysis.

Purpose: More than five hundred million direct dental restorations are placed each year worldwide. In about 55% of the cases, resin composites or compomers are used, and in 45% amalgam. The longevity of posterior resin restorations is well documented. However, data on resin composites that are placed without enamel/dentin conditioning and resin composites placed with self-etching adhesive systems are missing. Material and Methods: The database SCOPUS was searched for clinical trials on posterior resin composites without restricting the search to the year of publication. The inclusion criteria were: (1) prospective clinical trial with at least 2 years of observation; (2) minimum number of restorations at last recall = 20; (3) report on dropout rate; (4) report of operative technique and materials used; (5) utilization of Ryge or modified Ryge evaluation criteria. For amalgam, only those studies were included that directly compared composite resin restorations with amalgam. For the statistical analysis, a linear mixed model was used with random effects to account for the heterogeneity between the studies. P-values under 0.05 were considered significant. Results: Of the 373 clinical trials, 59 studies met the inclusion criteria. In 70% of the studies, Class II and Class I restorations had been placed. The overall success rate of composite resin restorations was about 90% after 10 years, which was not different from that of amalgam. Restorations with compomers had a significantly lower longevity. The main reason for replacement were bulk fractures and caries adjacent to restorations. Both of these incidents were infrequent in most studies and accounted only for about 6% of all replaced restorations after 10 years. Restorations with macrofilled composites and compomer suffered significantly more loss of anatomical form than restorations with other types of material. Restorations that were placed without enamel acid etching and a dentin bonding agent showed significantly more marginal staining and detectable margins compared to those restorations placed using the enamel-etch or etch-and-rinse technique; restorations with self-etching systems were between the other groups. Restorations with compomer suffered significantly more chippings (repairable fracture) than restorations with other materials, which did not statistically differ among each other. Restorations that were placed with a rubber-dam showed significantly fewer material fractures that needed replacement, and this also had a significant effect on the overall longevity. Conclusion: Restorations with hybrid and microfilled composites that were placed with the enamel-etching technique and rubber-dam showed the best overall performance; the longevity of these restorations was similar to amalgam restorations. Compomer restorations, restorations placed with macrofilled composites, and resin restorations with no-etching or self-etching adhesives demonstrated significant shortcomings and shorter longevity.

Meta-analysis of the influence of bonding parameters on the clinical outcome of tooth-colored cervical restorations

PURPOSE: To meta-analyze the literature on the clinical performance of Class V restorations to assess the factors that influence retention, marginal integrity, and marginal discoloration of cervical lesions restored with composite resins, glass-ionomer-cement-based materials [glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGICs)], and polyacid-modified resin composites (PMRC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: The English literature was searched (MEDLINE and SCOPUS) for prospective clinical trials on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months. The studies had to report about retention, marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and marginal caries and include a description of the operative technique (beveling of enamel, roughening of dentin, type of isolation). Eighty-one studies involving 185 experiments for 47 adhesives matched the inclusion criteria. The statistical analysis was carried out by using the following linear mixed model: log (-log (Y /100)) = β + α log(T ) + error with β = log(λ), where β is a summary measure of the non-linear deterioration occurring in each experiment, including a random study effect. RESULTS: On average, 12.3% of the cervical restorations were lost, 27.9% exhibited marginal discoloration, and 34.6% exhibited deterioration of marginal integrity after 5 years. The calculation of the clinical index was 17.4% of failures after 5 years and 32.3% after 8 years. A higher variability was found for retention loss and marginal discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries lesions were detected, even in the experiments with a follow-up time longer than 8 years. Restorations placed using rubber-dam in teeth whose dentin was roughened showed a statistically significantly higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin or without rubber-dam (p < 0.05). However, enamel beveling had no influence on any of the examined variables. Significant differences were found between pairs of adhesive systems and also between pairs of classes of adhesive systems. One-step self-etching had a significantly worse clinically index than two-step self-etching and three-step etch-and-rinse (p = 0.026 and p = 0.002, respectively). CONCLUSION: The clinical performance is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system and/or the adhesive class to which the system belongs. Whether the dentin/enamel is roughened or not and whether rubberdam isolation is used or not also significantly influenced the clinical performance. Composite resin restorations placed with two-step self-etching and three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive systems should be preferred over onestep self-etching adhesive systems, GIC-based materials, and PMRCs.