Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Fang, Keda; Chen, Kenan; Shi, M.; Wang, Liang

doi:10.1007/s00784-023-05007-0

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible explanation may be that the less favorable adhesion is expressed as very small marginal defects, which are not easily noticeable under clinical examination in the post-treatment period of the study. This finding agrees with the conclusion of Josic et al (2021) that self-etch and total-etch bonding strategies provide restorations with comparable marginal outcomes up to a 3-year follow-up [35], but it is in contrast with two other systematic reviews/meta-analyses that showed worse marginal performance in restorations with the use of self-etch relative to total-etch techniques [32,34]. Furthermore, Szesz et al (2016) found that selective enamel etching provided better marginal quality than self-etching [3].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Notably, the conclusions of systematic reviews that examined the risk of restoration loss using adhesives that belong to different adhesive strategies are controversial. Some studies revealed comparable outcomes among different bonding types/techniques for long-lasting post-operation periods [ 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ], whereas others did not confirm such an effect [ 24 , 33 , 34 , 35 ]. Multiple variables of the adhesive systems related to the composition, application steps, acidity, and placement process cause the results’ heterogeneity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most systematic studies have mentioned the superiority of the total-etch technique to the self-etch [ 24 , 29 , 32 , 34 , 46 , 47 ], whereas only Josic et al (2021) reported no difference [ 35 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Pappa,

Gkavela,

Sampri

et al. 2024

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and objective: The aim of this randomized split-mouth study-controlled clinical trial was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of resin composite restorations placed at non-caries cervical lesions (NCCL) with one-step self-etch, total-etch, and selective enamel etch and self-etch adhesive techniques. Materials and methods: Thirty-two patients received three resin composite restorations each at NCCLs (Tetric EvoCeram/Ivoclar/Vivadent), bonded with a total-etch adhesive agent (ExciTE F/Ivoclar/Vivadent) and a self-etch (AdheSE One F/Ivoclar/Vivadent) without and with selective enamel etching. All restorations were evaluated by two examiners at baseline, 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-months with FDI clinical criteria (post-operation regarding retention, caries occurrence, marginal adaptation, and marginal staining). A logistic regression analysis, a Cohen’s kappa statistic, a multifactorial analysis, and X2 were performed with generalized estimating equations. Results: After 2 years, the retention rate was 86.8% for total etch, 92.26% for self-etch, and 93.63% for selective enamel etching and self-etch. No caries was detected on the restorations. Concerning marginal adaptation, the clinically perfect restorations were 26.9% for the total-etch technique, 16% for self-etch, and 25.9% for selective enamel etch and self-etch. The logistic regression model revealed that only time reduced the probability of perfect marginal adaptation. Conclusions: All three adhesive strategies provided restorations with no significant differences in the retention rate or marginal adaptation, whereas the total etch yielded better performance for marginal staining. All restorations were assessed as clinically acceptable after 2 years.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Pappa,

Gkavela,

Sampri

et al. 2024

Medicina

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The application of this agent causes selective decalcification of the enamel [2], creating a rough surface, increasing the contact area and surface energy that provides the substrate for infiltration of the bonding agent, making micromechanical bonding possible between adhesive materials and the enamel surface. Three types of adhesive systems are currently available: etch&rinse, self-etch, and the universal system [3,4]. The etch&rinse adhesive system is characterized by conditioning the enamel with orthophosphoric acid and involves two or three steps, as the primer and bonding agents can be separate or combined in a single bottle.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic Bracket Rebonding with and without Fluoride: A Pilot Study

Vale,

Travassos,

Pinto

et al. 2023

J. Compos. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adhesion between orthodontic brackets and conditioned enamel surfaces is essential for treatment success with fixed appliances. During treatment, enamel demineralization lesions commonly appear although remineralization is possible through fluoride application. Aim: Evaluation of the surface rugosity in bracket rebonding, specifically the influence of fluoride application before the bonding protocol. In total, 30 human premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were used and divided into three groups. The control group was not submitted to any experimental manipulation; group 1 and 2 were placed in a demineralization solution and group 2 was additionally subjected to a subsequent fluoride application. The surface rugosity was measured at different timings: T0—before bracket bonding; T1—first bracket debonding after composite removal; and T2—second bracket debonding after composite removal. For the statistical analysis, the Kruskal–Wallis test, Mann-Whitney test, and Student’s t-test were used. Regarding the comparison between groups, at T0 and T1, no statistically significant differences were observed. However, at T2, statistically significant differences were verified between the control group and group 1 for the parameters: Ra (p = 0.0043), Rq (p = 0.0043), Rqmax (p = 0.0043), Rp (p = 0.0087), and Rv (p = 0.026). Regarding the evaluation between time points, in the control group, no statistically significant differences were observed. In group 1, statistically significant results were found between T0 and T1 for the parameters: Rq (p = 0.0451), Rqmax (p = 0.0451), Rp (p = 0.0091), and Rvk (p = 0.0433) and between T1 and T2 for the parameters: Ra (p = 0.0465), Rq (p = 0.0433), Rqmax (p = 0.0433), and Rp (p = 0.0155). In group 2, statistically significant differences were found between T0 and T1 for the parameter Rvk (p = 0.0405). A decrease In surface rugosity was observed during multiple bracket rebonding procedures. Therefore, this study suggests that rebonding procedures alter the enamel surface rugosity. The need for rebonding should be avoided, opting for a more effective and correct first bonding. In the case of multiple rebonding, enamel remineralization maneuvers must be applied to recover the surface, since the results of this study suggest that the application of fluoride prior to bracket adhesion promotes lower surface roughness.

show abstract

Postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations restored with self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill resin composites: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial

Maghaireh,

Albashaireh,

Allouz

2023

Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cited by 9 publications

References 40 publications

A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions

Orthodontic Bracket Rebonding with and without Fluoride: A Pilot Study

Postoperative sensitivity in posterior restorations restored with self-adhesive and conventional bulk-fill resin composites: A randomized clinical split-mouth trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About