Randomized trial evaluates reduced etching time on clinical performance in noncarious cervical lesions, suggesting feasibility.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of reduced dentin etching time on the clinical performance of two universal adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs). METHODS: A total of 144 NCCLs restorations were randomly placed in 36 participants according to four experimental groups: SUP5 (Scotchbond Universal Plus adhesive [pH ≈2.5-2.7] applied on dentin etched for 5 s [experimental group]); SUP15 (SUP applied on dentin etched for 15 s [control group]); GBU5 (Gluma Bond Universal adhesive [pH ≈1.5-1.8] applied on dentin etched for 5 s [experimental group]); GBU15 (GBU applied on dentin etched for 15 s [control group]). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months, using the updated FDI criteria. Appropriate statistical analyses were performed (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The recall rate was 100% at 6 months. Retention/material fracture rates were 97.2% (87.3-100) for SUP5 and SUP15, and 94.4% (83.1-100) for GBU5 and GBU15. No significant differences among the groups were observed for retention or material fracture. Two restorations showed minor marginal staining, two restorations showed minor postoperative (hyper-) sensitivity, and 25 restorations presented minimal marginal adaptation defects. No significant differences were observed among the groups for any secondary clinical parameters evaluated (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Reducing dentin etching time did not negatively affect the 6-month clinical performance of NCCLs resin restorations bonded with universal adhesives. Therefore, shorter dentin etching times represent a viable clinical approach in adhesive clinical procedures, reducing chair time. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Shortened dentin etching time does not compromise the short-term clinical performance of universal adhesive systems in NCCLs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gutiérrez et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: