These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: An evaluation of different adhesive restorations in cervical lesions.
    Author: Vanherle G, Lambrechts P, Braem M.
    Journal: J Prosthet Dent; 1991 Mar; 65(3):341-7. PubMed ID: 1829111.
    Abstract:
    The restoration of 457 cervical lesions was completed with three different bonding agents. All restorations were divided into two categories. In group A the incisal enamel was neither bevelled nor etched. The lesion was cleaned, followed by the application of the bonding agent and the composite resin. The restorations were finished with a butt joint. In group B, after cleaning procedures, the incisal enamel of all lesions was bevelled and etched, followed by the application of the bonding agent and the composite resin. The restorations were finished to a feather edge. The results from this clinical investigation indicated a high failure rate when only dentinal bonding was involved. The group A restorations suffered from a high rate of loss after 6 months. Moreover, the rate of loss increased over subsequent months. The dentin bonding agents used in combination with micromechanical retention on the enamel border in the group B restorations, however, provided an acceptable clinical result. Not only was the percentage of lost restorations quite low after 6 months, but these bonding systems also offered a more reliable marginal adaptation compared with the enamel bond system. One may conclude that the use of a dentin bonding agent in combination with mechanical retention offers a better chance of clinical success in terms of marginal adaptation, retention, and esthetics.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]