LOADING

Type to search

Dental Materials Restorative Dentistry Supporting Your Practice

What is the retention success of tooth-coloured restorations in non-carious cervical lesions? A systematic review

This summary is based on the article published in Clinical Oral Investogation: Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesion. A systematic review (June 2014)

Maria Jacinta Moraes Coelho Santos, Nilgun Ari, Shawn Steele, John Costella, & David Banting

Context

Non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) have been extensively investigated due to their pervasive nature and the fact that their prevalence increases with advancing age. (1–3)

A NCCL is characterized by a slow and gradual loss of mineralized dental tissue in the absence of dental caries. Although the etiology of NCCLs has not been fully determined, evidence supports a multifactorial origin such as abrasion, erosion, and abfraction. (1, 2, 4)

NCCLs may require the placement of a restoration due to hypersensivity, esthetic concerns, prevention of food entrapment, the need for denture retention, or for halting the progression of the defect. (1, 2)

The most common materials used to restore NCCLs are resin composites, glass ionomer cements (GI), resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGI), and polyacidmodified resin composites (PMRC). (5–7)

The restoration of NCCLs is often considered a challenging procedure since no retention form is present and, most of the time, the cervical margin is located in the cementum or dentin.

Purpose of the Review

To assess the effectiveness of tooth-colored materials, adhesive systems, surface treatment, and preparation techniques on the success of NCCLs restorations.

Key Messages

The current best evidence indicates that:

  • A glass ionomer cement has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to either a three-step etch-andrinse or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system;
  • A threestep etch-and-rinse adhesive system has a significantly lower risk of loss of a NCCL restoration compared to a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system.

References

  1. Levitch LC, Bader JD, Shugars DA, Heymann HO (1994) Noncarious cervical lesions. J Dent 22:195–207.
  2. Spranger H (1995) Investigation into the genesis of angular lesions at the cervical region of teeth. Quintessence Int 26:149–154.
  3. Tay FR, Pashley DH (2004) Resin bonding to cervical sclerotic dentin: a review. J Dent 32:173–196.
  4. Karan K, Yao X, Xu C,Wang Y (2012) Chemical characterization of etched dentin in non-carious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent 14:315–322.
  5. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B (2005) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dent Mater 21:864–881.
  6. Heintze SD, Ruffieux C, Rousson V (2010) Clinical performance of cervical restorations—a meta-analysis. Dent Mater 26:993–1000.
  7. Krithikadatta J (2010) Clinical effectiveness of contemporary dentin bonding agents. J Conserv Dent 13:173–183

 

Do you have any particular question on this topic? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Email us at oasisdiscussions@cda-adc.ca

You are invited to comment on this post and provide further insights by posting in the comment box which you will find by clicking on “Post a reply” below. You are welcome to remain anonymous and your email address will not be posted. 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *