References

Burke FJT, McCord JF. Research in dental practice – problems and solutions. Br Dent J. 1993; 175:396-398
Burke FJT, Crisp RJ. Twenty years of handling evaluations and practice-based research by the PREP Panel. Dent Update. 2013; 40:339-341
Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acryl filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955; 34:849-853
Kramer IRH, McLean JW. Alterations in the staining reactions of dentine resulting from a constituent of a new self-polymerising resin. Br Dent J. 1952; 93:150-153
Perdigao J. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion – not there yet. Japanese Dent Sci Rev. 2020; 56:190-207
Burke FJT, McCaughey AD. The four generations of dentine bonding. Am J Dent. 1995; 8:88-92
Burke FJT, MacKenzie L. An update on universal adhesives. Dent Update. 2021; 48:620-631
Burke FJT. What's new in dentine bonding? Self-etch adhesives. Dent Update. 2004; 31:580-589
Van Meerbeck B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011; 27:17-28
Christensen GJ. Adhesives 2018: are they getting better?. Clinicians Report. 2018; 11:1-4
Foxton R. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (2) Concepts for operatively managing carious lesions extending into dentine using bioactive and adhesive direct restorative materials. Japanese Dent Sci Rev. 2020; 56:208-215
Perdigão J, Araujo E, Ramos RQ Adhesive dentistry: current concepts and clinical considerations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2021; 33:51-68
Van Meerbeck B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. A status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020; 22:7-34

A practice-based clinical evaluation of a novel two-bottle dentine adhesive system

From Volume 49, Issue 2, February 2022 | Pages 112-116

Authors

FJ Trevor Burke

DDS, MSc, MDS, MGDS, FDS (RCS Edin), FDS RCS (Eng), FCG Dent, FADM,

Articles by FJ Trevor Burke

Peter Sands

MSc, BDS, LDS, MCGD

Didcot, Oxfordshire

Articles by Peter Sands

Russell J Crisp

BDS, DGDP, The PREP Panel Ltd.

Primary Dental Care Research Unit, University of Birmingham School of Dentistry, School of Medical and Dental Sciences, St Chad's Queensway, Birmingham B4 6NN, UK

Articles by Russell J Crisp

Abstract

This study evaluated the handling of a recently introduced two bottle dentine adhesive system by a group of practice-based researchers. Twelve evaluators from the practice-based research group, the PREP Panel, were sent explanatory letters, a pack of the material under investigation, G2-Bond Universal, with a request to use it, where indicated, for 10 weeks and then to complete a questionnaire designed to elicit the evaluators' views on the handling of the materials. In total, 568 restorations were placed. The results from the questionnaire indicated good acceptance of the material, despite the fact that it required more clinical steps than the material previously used by the evaluators.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Results from this evaluation indicate that there is a place in a majority of evaluators' practices for a two-bottle adhesive system.

Article

The value of practice-based research has been previously discussed,1 with the arena of general dental practice having been considered the ideal environment in which to carry out evaluations of the handling of dental materials and their clinical effectiveness. In this regard, a wide variety of research projects may be considered to be appropriate to general dental practice,1 including assessment of materials, devices and techniques, clinical trials of materials, assessment of treatment trends and, patient satisfaction with treatment.

A UK-based group of practice-based researchers is the PREP (Product Research and Evaluation by Practitioners) Panel. This group was established in 1993 with six general dental practitioners, and has grown to contain 25 dental practitioners located across the UK, with one in mainland Europe.2 The group have completed over 70 projects – ‘handling’ evaluations of materials and techniques, and more recently, clinical evaluations (n=8) of restorations placed under general dental practice conditions, with the restorations being followed for periods of up to 5 years.2

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available