Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 10, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Effect of an Additional Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer Application on the Clinical Performance of Class V Resin Composite
M Berkman1, S Tuncer2, F Karabay3
1*Meriç Berkman, PDDS, PhD, assistant professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Yeditepe University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey.
Objectives:
This study aimed to evaluate the 18-month clinical performance of two different one-step adhesives that were applied alone or with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer to noncarious cervical lesions.
Methods And Materials:
One hundred sixty teeth in 31 patients were included in the study. Each patient received at least four restorations. A 2-hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA)-containing one-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil S3 Bond Plus, Kuraray Noritake, Noritake, Japan) and a HEMA-free universal adhesive (G-Premio Bond) were applied to noncarious cervical lesions with or without additional hydrophobic adhesive (Heliobond) randomly. Teeth were restored with a nanohybrid composite. Restorations were evaluated according to FDI criteria at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 18-month recalls. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and the Friedman analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests (α=0.05).
Results:
At 18 months, recall rates were 100%, and there was no significant difference between four different adhesive applications in terms of any criteria (p>0.05). The cumulative retention rates were 92.5%, 92.5%, 97.5%, and 100% for the restorations with one-step self-etch, one-step self-etch plus hydrophobic adhesive layer, a universal adhesive, and a universal adhesive plus hydrophobic adhesive layer, respectively.
Conclusion:
An additional hydrophobic adhesive layer was found to have no significant effect on the 18-month clinical performance of two different one-step adhesive systems with and without HEMA.
