Abstract:Abstract Background Multimode adhesives incorporate the versatility of adapting to various clinical situations by its capacity to be used in different protocols. This study aimed to evaluate the clinical behavior of composite resin direct restorations (Class I and II) performed with different universal dentin adhesive application protocols comparing adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria. Methods The current study is a randomized, double-blind, split-mouth, and convenience sample controlled clinical trial. The participants (age ≥ 18 years) had restorative need of Class I and/or II due to the presence of carious lesions and/or unsatisfactory restorations in at least three dental elements. Each participant received three application protocols for Scotchbond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE), one in each tooth to be restored: ER = etch-and-rinse + adhesive (n = 50); SEE = selective enamel etch + adhesive (n = 50) and SE = self-etch adhesive (n = 50). All teeth were restored in a similar way using FiltekTM Supreme composite resin (3M ESPE). Restorations were evaluated using the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, at baseline after 7 to 21 (12.02 ± 5.68) days (T1; n = 50 per group) and after 12 to 20 (15.8 ± 2.7) months (T2; n = 46 per group) by two previously calibrated evaluators (Kappa > 0.80). The statistical tests were performed between groups (Friedman), intragroup (Wilcoxon), and between the criteria considering acceptable and not acceptable restorations (McNemar), α = 0.05. Results A statistically significant difference was observed only for the property “superficial staining”, between groups at T2 ( p = 0.01) for ER (n = 13 with score 2 or more) and SEE (n = 3 with score 2 or more) and intragroup for ER (T1, n = 1 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 13 with score 2 or more, p = 0.001) and SE (T1, n = 0 with score 2 or more; T2, n = 8 with score 2 or more p = 0.007). For the other comparisons between groups, intragroup, and between the adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria, there were no statistically significant differences ( p ≥ 0.05). Conclusions It can be concluded that the different application protocols of the universal adhesive resulted in clinically “acceptable” restorations after 15.8 ± 2.7 months of follow-up. Adapted FDI and adapted USPHS criteria provided similar results to each other. Trial registration. Number in Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC): RBR-9p3hdp. Registered 24 May 2015.

Clinical Performance of an Ormocer-based Single-shade Resin Composite for the Restoration of Non-carious Cervical Lesions: 18-month Randomized Clinical Trial

Influence of different viscosity and chemical composition of flowable composite resins: A 48-month split-mouth double-blind randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of preheating thermoviscous composite resin for non-carious cervical lesions restoration: a 24-month randomized clinical trial

Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial

Clinical performance of resin-modified glass ionomer cement, flowable composite, and polyacid-modified resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions: One-year follow-up

A 48-month clinical performance of hybrid ceramic fragment restorations manufactured in CAD/CAM in non-carious cervical lesions: case report

Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial

Clinical Performance and Wear Resistance of Highly Translucent Nano Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Filling Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Patients with Proximal Carious Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial

Evaluation of Preheating Methods for Bulk-Fill Thermoviscous Composite in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions: A 24-month Randomized Controlled Trial

Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities—a randomized clinical split-mouth study

Clinical evaluation of posterior flowable short fiber-reinforced composite restorations without proximal surface coverage

Three-year clinical evaluation of different restorative resins in class I restorations

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial

Mechanical and Optical Characterization of Single-shade Resin Composites Used in Posterior Teeth

Preliminary Clinical Evaluation of Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resin in Posterior Teeth: 12-Months Report

Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up

Epigallocatechin-3-gallate prior to composite resin in abfraction lesions: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Clinical performance of posterior restorations using a universal adhesive over moist and dry dentin: A 36-month double-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial

Single crown vs. composite for glass fiber post-retained restorations: an 8-year randomized clinical trial