Purpose: Mild and intermediately strong 2-step self-etch adhesives (2SEa) have been shown to bond efficiently to dentin. In general, their bonding efficiency to enamel is inferior to that of etch & rinse adhesives (E&Ra). On the other hand, their application procedure is less elaborate, and consequently leaves less room for application mistakes. The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of an intermediately strong 2SEa, as compared with that of a 3-step E&Ra after 6 years of clinical functioning. Materials and Methods: 239 non-carious cervical lesions in 50 patients were restored with the nanohybrid composite Herculite XRV (Kerr), bonded in random order either with the 2SEa Optibond XTR (‘O-XTR’, Kerr) or the gold-standard control 3E&Ra Optibond FL (‘O-FL’, Kerr). The restorations were recalled after 1, 2 and 6 years of clinical service and examined for retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, caries occurrence, and postoperative sensitivity. Statistical analysis was performed using a logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations (2-way GEE model). Results: The patient recall rate at 6 years was 94%. The overall clinical success rate was 81.9% and 80.9% for O-XTR and O-FL, respectively. In total, 42 restorations (21 O-XTR, 21 O-FL) failed because of retention loss, severe abfraction/abrasion/erosion, severe marginal defects and/or discoloration, and/or caries. A retention rate of 92.9% and 88.9% was recorded for O-XTR and O-FL, respectively. Progressive marginal deterioration was observed over the 6-year period. Small clinically acceptable marginal defects were recorded in about 70% of the restorations (O-XTR: 69.9%; O-FL: 74.1%). Regarding marginal discoloration, 37% of the O-XTR and 30.2% of the O-FL restorations showed superficial clinically acceptable marginal discoloration. Six O-XTR and 4 O-FL restorations exhibited caries at the restoration margin. No significant difference was observed between the two groups for any of the evaluated parameters (p > 0.05). Conclusion: After 6 years of clinical service, Class-V restorations bonded with the 2SEa performed clinically equally well as those bonded with the 3E&Ra. Keywords: randomized clinical trial, RCT, Class V, bonding, adhesion, clinical effectiveness

The importance of the interdental anatomy of a class-2 direct composite restoration is one of the most underestimated topics in direct posterior composite restorations. The proximal emergence profile of the restoration and the contact area should be designed to maximize arch continuity and to minimize food impaction. Other restorative criteria that must be fulfilled are marginal adaptation compatible with the dental and periodontal integrity, and geometry of the marginal ridge compatible with the mechanical integrity of the restoration under load. Shortcomings will result in masticatory discomfort, caries, periodontal problems and undesired movement of teeth. In vitro and in vivo studies showed that the use a contoured sectional metal matrix band with a separation clamp results in the tightest contact point. However, this matrix system also has shortcomings and does not give the expected result in all class-2 cavities. The variation in depth, width of the box, distance between the cervical cavity margin and the adjacent tooth requires customization of the interproximal space. In order to realize this, sectional matrix bands with several profiles of curvature, variation of wedges and separation clamps, and the use of teflon tape are required. In addition, dentists should follow a protocol allowing them to build a proximal composite surface that fulfills the required restorative criteria. Pre-wedging, space evaluation, interproximal clearance, correct selection, positioning and stabilization of the matrix band are important steps in this protocol. Keywords: class-2, composite resin restoration, matrix system, proximal contact point, proximal emergence profile

Abstract: Tooth-cavity preparation contributes to a large extent to the quality of the direct posterior composite restoration, the so-called hidden quality of the restoration. Indeed, the effect of a poor cavity design is not immediately visible after placement of the restoration. To correctly prepare a cavity for a posterior composite restoration, the tooth to be restored should first be profoundly biomechanically analyzed. Here, the forces that work on the tooth during occlusion and articulation, and the amount and quality of the remaining tooth structure determine the cavity form. In addition, the dental tissues must be prepared in order to receive the best possible bond of the adhesive and subsequent restorative composite. A well-finished cavity preparation enables the restorative composite to adapt well, providing a good marginal ?seal to the direct benefit of the clinical lifetime of the posterior composite restoration. Finally, it is highly recommendable to isolate the teeth with rubber-dam before starting with the cavity preparation, as this increases the visibility of the operating field and allows the operator to work in a more precise way.

Abstract: Currently, there is a trend towards simplification of materials and clinical procedures. Simplification and quality can go together if the dentist works with materials and techniques that are well proven in vitro and in vivo. The placement of a high-quality class-1/2 direct posterior composite restoration can be time efficient following a standardized layering protocol and using composite materials that adapt well to the tooth surface and are able to mimic the natural tooth. When these materials are applied in a controlled way, finishing and polishing can also be shortened. In this article, an effective layering and finishing/polishing protocol for medium-sized class-1/2 direct posterior composite restorations is presented. Following the histo-anatomic buildup of natural teeth, dentin must be concave, as opposed to convex enamel. An isochromatic, medium-opaque, highly filled flowable composite is used to replace dentin. Enamel is replaced with a medium-translucent small-particle hybrid composite. Enamel is modelled in an anatomical way, following a successive cusp-by-cusp buildup approach. Clinical experience shows that the combination of both materials used according to this so-called bi-laminar histo-anatomical layering approach results in restorations that blend in very well within the surrounding tooth structure. Following a simplified finishing and polishing protocol, the composite restorations will have a correct contour, seamless margins, and a smooth, glossy surface. Keywords: adhesion, finishing, flowable, layering, polishing, polymerization, posterior composite, shrinkage

Purpose: Universal adhesives (UAs) are applied in 2-step etch-and-rinse (2-E&R) or 1-step self-etch (1-SE) mode. This study investigated whether three UAs could benefit from a highly filled extra bonding layer (EBL), turning them into 3-E&R and 2-SE UAs, respectively, thus also compensating for the commonly thin film thickness of UAs. Materials and Methods: Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) to bur-cut dentin of Clearfil Universal Bond Quick (C-UBq, Kuraray Noritake), G-Premio Bond (G-PrB, GC) and Prime&Bond Active (P&Ba, Dentsply Sirona), applied in E&R and SE mode without/with the adhesive resin (EBL) of OptiBond FL (Opti-FL_ar, Kerr), was compared to that of the 3-E&Ra OptiBond FL (Opti-FL; Kerr), which was also employed in 2-SE mode. As a cross reference, the SE primer of Clearfil SE Bond 2 (Kuraray Noritake) was combined with Opti-FL_ar (C-SE2/Opti-FL) and again applied in 2-SE and 3-E&R mode. μTBS was measured after 1 month of water storage (37°C) and additional 25,000 and 50,000 thermocycles (TC). All μTBS were statistically analyzed using three different linear mixed-effects models with specific contrasts (p < 0.05). Results: Overall, the four parameters (adhesive, bonding mode, aging, EBL) significantly influenced μTBS. G-PrB and P&Ba benefited from EBL when applied in both E&R and SE bonding modes. In E&R mode, P&Ba generally revealed the highest µTBS; C-UBq presented an intermediate and G-PrB the lowest µTBS. No significant differences were found between different bonding modes. C-SE2/Opti-FL outperformed Opti-FL in 3-E&R and 2-SE_1 month/25k. Conclusion: The overall benefit of EBL on the 1-month and TC-aged bonding efficacy differed for the different UAs tested. Keywords: bond strength, durability, hydrophobic, linear mixed model (LME), adhesive-dentin interface