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

Table 6 Number of restorations evaluated, for each experimental group, classified according to the adapted USPHS criteria at T1 and T2 times

	Scores	“Decision”	T1			T2
	Scores	“Decision”	ER	SEE	SE	ER	SEE	SE
Marginal staining	Alpha	Acceptable	50	50	50	42	42	42
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	̶	4	4	4
	Charlie	Not acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
Fracture	Alpha	Acceptable	50	49	50	46	46	45
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	1
	Charlie	Not acceptable	̶	1	̶	̶	̶	̶
Retention	Alpha	Acceptable	50	50	50	46	46	46
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
	Charlie	Not acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
Marginal adaptation	Alpha	Acceptable	50	50	49	45	44	45
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	1	1	2	1
	Charlie	Not acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
Postoperative sensitivity	Alpha	Acceptable	47	47	47	46	46	46
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
	Charlie	Not acceptable	3^a,b,c	3^d,e,f	3^g,h,i	̶	̶	̶
Recurrence of caries	Alpha	Acceptable	50	50	50	46	46	46
	Bravo	Acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶
	Charlie	Not acceptable	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶	̶

Abbreviations T1- first evaluation; T2- second evaluation; ER- Etch-and-rinse; SEE- Selective Enamel Etch; SE- Self-Etch. Letters overwritten: a.patient 29 tooth 16; b.patient 39 tooth 17; c.patient 46 tooth 36; d.patient 28 tooth 15; e.patient 39 tooth 36; f. patient 48 tooth 36; g. patient 8 tooth 16; h.patient 39 tooth 37; i.patient 49 tooth 46

ISSN: 1472-6831