During my presentations I am often asked why clinical research into bonding systems is conducted using class V situations.

The non-carious class V lesion is most suitable for this type of research for a number of reasons. Unquestionably, the main reason is the fact that such lesions present little or no macro retention. It must be remembered that if a cavity presents macro retention, loss of adhesive strength in the bonding interface will not automatically lead to loss of retention.

Other major reasons (in no particular order) are that such lesions occur relatively often, but also that in general they are situated in an easily accessible area and do not demand complex restoration technology. The configuration factor is low (ratio between free and bonded areas) and does not therefore cause much shrinkage stress. In addition, both enamel and dentine are involved in the restoration, although in some studies efforts are made to limit bonding to enamel (for example, in Van Dijken et al., Clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. A 13 year evaluation. Dent Mat 2007).

The restoration is then re-assessed periodically. Obviously, loss of retention is considered, and sometimes restorations are also assessed on marginal integrity, marginal discolouring and aesthetics.

Whenever a restoration goes wrong, this is noted as a failure. The survival/lifetime of restorations is expressed in an Annual Failure Rate; for example, an AFR of 4.6 means that, on an annual basis, 4.6% of the restorations failed in the course of the study.

Phosphoric acid, sometimes also called orthophosphoric acid, is a substance that is used frequently in the practice of dentistry, mostly in concentrations between 30 and 40%. It is a proven substance for the etching of enamel (Buonocore 1955). It also entails hazards, because contact with the eyes and skin may cause severe irritation, blistering and burns.

The substance should only be applied where its use is intended, and proper control is of the essence. The use of a coloured gel is therefore recommended, preferably of a thixotropic type. The application of a cofferdam is also definitely recommended, and the patient should wear protective glasses ( the practitioners should obviously also wear protective glasses). When removing the etching gel, the main volume should first be sucked away using a saliva ejector without a cap. The area should then be rinsed clean with a spray mist suction device under continued suction.

If the etching gel should unintentionally get onto the skin or, even worse, into the eyes, the affected area should be rinsed with plenty of water until the patient no longer feels any pain in the affected area. In such a case, it is recommended that medical assistance be sought.

This article is based on a publication in the British Dental Journal Vol 217 No.2 Jul 25 2014
Link to the publication. 

I would like to refer to a recently conducted study by Garcia et al. to reply to this question, which derives from practice. The study examines the effect of three desensitisers on the bonding strength to dentine of a composite cement.

The study concluded that the effect is dependent on the material. Gluma Desensitizer (Heraeus Kulzer) and Super Seal (Phoenix Dental) decreased the bonding strength, whereas TeethmateTM Desensitizer (Kuraray Noritake) improved the bonding strength. The researchers obviously consider it necessary to conduct further research into the workings of TeethmateTM Desensitizer, a cement that contains calcium phosphate.

Clinical significance:

TeethmateTM Desensitizer, a material containing calcium phosphate, may serve as a useful new generation of desensitisers for use prior to the cementing of indirect restorations.

Click here for the research abstract.