ÇÜRÜKSÜZ SERVİKAL BÖLGE DİŞ SERT DOKU KAYIPLARININ RESTORASYONUNDA UNIVERSAL DENTİN BAĞLAYICI AJAN KULLANILARAK FDI KRİTERLERİNE GÖRE DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Yıl 2018, Cilt: 21 Sayı: 4, 357 - 370, 30.12.2018

Gözde İslatice Özkubat Batu Can Yaman Hatice Tepe Özgür Irmak

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.467923

Cited By: 2

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı çürüksüz servikal
lezyonlarda, universal bağlayıcı ajanın farklı kullanım modlarının
etkinliğinin karşılaştırılmasıdır.

Materyal metot: Çalışmaya ESOGÜ Diş
Hekimliği Fakültesi Restoratif Diş Tedavisi Anabilim Dalı’na Mayıs 2015-Temmuz
2015 tarihleri arasında tedavisi tamamlanmış hastaların arasından herhangi bir
sistemik hastalığı olmayan, ağız hijyeni iyi, ağzında en az 20 dişi bulunan, en
az 6 adet çürüksüz servikal lezyonlu dişi universal dentin bağlayıcı ajanın
farklı kullanım modları ve nanohibrit kompozit materyal ile restore edilmiş 25
hasta seçilmiştir. İlgili 246 restorasyon FDI kriterlerine göre 18 aylık
süreçte değerlendirilmiştir. Her bir adeziv modun zamana bağlı tekrarlı skor
değişkenleri Friedman analizi ve Dunn’s ikili karşılaştırma testi ile
değerlendirilmiştir. Kategorik mod değişkeni ile skorlar arasındaki ilişki
Pearson Ki-Kare analizi ile değerlendirilerek p<0.05 bulunan sonuçlar
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı kabul edilmiştir.

Bulgular: Yüzey cilası, yüzey
renklenmesi, renk uyumu ve translusensi, estetik anatomik form, marjinal
adaptasyon, post operatif hassasiyet, çürük rekürrensi, erozyon, abfraksiyon,
diş bütünlüğü ve periodontal yanıt kriterlerinde 18 aylık süreç içerisinde modlar
arasında anlamlı bir farklılık bulunmazken (p>0.05) marjinal renklenme,
kırık ve retansiyon ve hastanın görüşü kriterlerinde 18 aylık süreç içerisinde
modlar arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmuştur (p<0.05). Estetik anatomik
form, hastanın görüşleri ve diş bütünlüğü değerlendirmesinde ise her bir adeziv
mod için aylar arasında anlamlı bir farklılık gözlenmezken (p>0.05) diğer
kriterlerde zamana bağlı değişimler gözlemlenmiştir (p<0.05).

Sonuç: Restorasyonların klinik başarısı açısından TE
ve SLE moduna göre en kötü skorlamalar SE moduna ait olmuştur. Ancak; universal
adezivlerin performanslarının değerlendirilebilmesi için daha birçok çalışmaya
ihtiyaç vardır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Çürüksüz servikal lezyon, FDI kriterleri, universal adeziv

Çürüksüz Servikal Bölge Diş Sert Doku Kayıplarında Universal Adeziv Kullanılarak Yapılan Restorasyonların FDI Kriterlerine Göre Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Aim:  This study aimed to compare the different
application modes of universal bonding agents on non-carious cervical
lesions. 

Material and method:  Twenty-five patients without any systemic
disease and with good oral hygiene, having at least 20 teeth and 6 non-carious
cervical lesions treated using a universal adhesive and nano hybrid composite
material were selected among the patients who were treated at Department of
Restorative Dentistry, Eskişehir Osmangazi University between January
2015-March 2015. The 246 restorations included in the study were evaluated
according to FDI criteria at 18-month follow-up. Each bonding mode was analyzed
by Friedman analysis and Dunn’s binary comparison test. Relation between the
categorical mode variate and the scores were analyzed by Pearson Chi-square
analysis (p=0.05).

Results: There was no
significant difference between the application modes at 18-month period
regarding surface luster, surface staining, color match and translucency,
esthetic anatomical form, marginal adaptation, post operative sensitivity,
caries recurrence, erosion, abfraction, tooth integrity and periodontal
response. Marginal discoloration, fracture and retention, and the patient's
view criterias showed a significant difference in terms of the application
modes at 18-month follow-up. Esthetic anatomic form, patient's view, and tooth
integrity were not significantly different between evaluation periods
(p>0.05).

Conclusion: SE mode showed
significantly worse scores than that of TE and SLE modes. Further studies are
needed to evaluate the clinical performance of universal adhesives.

Anahtar Kelimeler

FDI criteria, non carious cervical lesion, universal adhesive

Kaynakça

• 1. Chan DC, Browning WD, Pohjola R, Hackman S, Myers ML. Predictors of non-carious loss of cervical tooth tissues. Operative dentistry 2006; 31: 84-88.
• 2. Reis A, Loguercio A. A 24-month follow-up of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in non-carious cervical lesions. Operative dentistry 2006; 31: 523-529.
• 3. Levitch L, Bader J, Shugars D, Heymann H. Non-carious cervical lesions. Journal of Dentistry 1994; 22: 195-207.
• 4. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 215-235.
• 5. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 864-881.
• 6. Reis A, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Gones OM, Patzlaff R, Loguercio AD. Impact of adhesive application to wet and dry dentin on long-term resin-dentin bond strengths. Oper Dent 2007; 32: 380-387.
• 7. Dal-Bianco K, Pellizzaro A, Patzlaft R, de Oliveira Bauer JR, Loguercio AD, Reis A. Effects of moisture degree and rubbing action on the immediate resin–dentin bond strength. dental materials 2006; 22: 1150-1156.
• 8. Spencer P, Swafford JR. Unprotected protein at the dentin-adhesive interface. Quintessence International 1999; 30.
• 9. Pioch T, Staehle HJ, Wurst M, Duschner H, Dorfer C. The nanoleakage phenomenon: influence of moist vs dry bonding. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 23-30.
• 10. Sano H. Microtensile testing, nanoleakage, and biodegradation of resin-dentin bonds. J Dent Res 2006; 85: 11-14.
• 11. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 90-101.
• 12. Hashimoto M, Ohno H, Kaga M, Endo K, Sano H, Oguchi H. In vivo degradation of resin-dentin bonds in humans over 1 to 3 years. J Dent Res 2000; 79: 1385-1391.
• 13. Peumans M, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Eight-year clinical evaluation of a 2-step self-etch adhesive with and without selective enamel etching. Dental Materials 2010; 26: 1176-1184.
• 14. Erickson RL, Barkmeier WW, Latta MA. The role of etching in bonding to enamel: a comparison of self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2009; 25: 1459-1467.
• 15. Hanabusa M, Mine A, Kuboki T, Momoi Y, Van Ende A, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Bonding effectiveness of a new ‘multi-mode’adhesive to enamel and dentine. Journal of dentistry 2012; 40: 475-484.
• 16. Perdigao J, Sezinando A, Monteiro PC. Laboratory bonding ability of a multi-purpose dentin adhesive. Am J Dent 2012; 25: 153-158.
• 17. Lee B-S, Lin P-Y, Chen M-H, Hsieh T-T, Lin C-P, Lai J-Y, Lan W-H. Tensile bond strength of Er, Cr: YSGG laser-irradiated human dentin and analysis of dentin–resin interface. dental materials 2007; 23: 570-578.
• 18. Chen C, Niu L-N, Xie H, Zhang Z-Y, Zhou L-Q, Jiao K, Chen J-H, Pashley DH, Tay F. Bonding of universal adhesives to dentine–Old wine in new bottles? Journal of dentistry 2015; 43: 525-536.
• 19. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigao J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent 2015; 43: 1083-1092.
• 20. Kwong S, Cheung G, Kei L, Itthagarun A, Smales R, Tay F, Pashley DH. Micro-tensile bond strengths to sclerotic dentin using a self-etching and a total-etching technique. Dental Materials 2002; 18: 359-369.
• 21. Gwinnett AJ, Kanca J, 3rd. Interfacial morphology of resin composite and shiny erosion lesions. Am J Dent 1992; 5: 315-317.
• 22. Reis A, Carrilho M, Breschi L, Loguercio AD. Overview of clinical alternatives to minimize the degradation of the resin-dentin bonds. Oper Dent 2013; 38: E1-E25.
• 23. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. Journal of Dentistry 2004; 32: 173-196.
• 24. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016; 53: 1-11.
• 25. Goracci C, Rengo C, Eusepi L, Juloski J, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Influence of selective enamel etching on the bonding effectiveness of a new "all-in-one" adhesive. Am J Dent 2013; 26: 99-104.
• 26. Frankenberger R, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf MJ, Naumann M, Taschner M. Selective enamel etching reconsidered: better than etch-and-rinse and self-etch? Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2008; 10.
• 27. Swanson TK, Feigal RJ, Tantbirojn D, Hodges JS. Effect of adhesive systems and bevel on enamel margin integrity in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr Dent 2008; 30: 134-140.
• 28. Oilo G, Jorgensen KD. Effect of bevelling on the occurrence of fractures in the enamel surrounding composite resin fillings. J Oral Rehabil 1977; 4: 305-309.
• 29. Mehrabkhani M. Mazhari F, Mehrabkhani M, Sadeghi S, Malekabadi KS. Effect of bevelling on marginal microleakage of buccal-surface fissure sealants in permanent teeth. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2009 Dec; 10 (4): 241-3. Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences 2008; 5: 77-82.
• 30. Ikeda T, Uno S, Tanaka T, Kawakami S, Komatsu H, Sano H. Relation of enamel prism orientation to microtensile bond strength. Am J Dent 2002; 15: 109-113.
• 31. Schroeder M, Reis A, Luque-Martinez I, Loguercio AD, Masterson D, Maia LC. Effect of enamel bevel on retention of cervical composite resin restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2015; 43: 777-788.
• 32. Ibarra G, Vargas MA, Armstrong SR, Cobbb DS. Microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to ground and unground enamel. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4: 115-124.
• 33. Perdigao J, Geraldeli S. Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel. J Esthet Restor Dent 2003; 15: 32-41; discussion 42.
• 34. Reis A, Moura S, Pellizzaro A, Dal-Bianco K, Andrade A, Grande R, Loguercio A. Durability of enamel bonding using one-step self-etch systems on ground and unground enamel. Operative dentistry 2009; 34: 181-191.
• 35. Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjör I, Bayne S, Peters M, Hiller K-A, Randall R, Vanherle G, Heintze SD. FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations—update and clinical examples. Clinical oral investigations 2010; 14: 349-366.
• 36. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V. Clinical performance of cervical restorations—a meta-analysis. dental materials 2010; 26: 993-1000.
• 37. Munoz MA, Luque I, Hass V, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH. Immediate bonding properties of universal adhesives to dentine. J Dent 2013; 41: 404-411.
• 38. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent 2014; 42: 800-807.
• 39. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosa M, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, Pashley DH, Tay F, Breschi L. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent 2014; 42: 603-612.
• 40. Perdigao J, Swift EJ, Jr. Critical appraisal: post-op sensitivity with direct composite restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent 2013; 25: 284-288.
• 41. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent 2015; 43: 1229-1234.
• 42. Perdigao J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent 2014; 39: 113-127.
• 43. da Rosa WLdO, Piva E, da Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of dentistry 2015; 43: 765-776.