Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objectives

We aimed to answer the following PICO question: “Is the risk of postoperative sensitivity (POS), retention rates and marginal discoloration of composite restorations [CR] bonded with self-etch (SE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adults equals to etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesives?”.

Methods

A comprehensive search was performed in May 2016 in the MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO and Cochrane Library and SIGLE, abstracts of IADR, unpublished and ongoing trials registries, dissertations and theses without restrictions. Only randomized clinical trials that compared composite resin restorations placed with self-etch and etch-and-rinse in NCCLs were included. After removal of duplicates and non-eligible articles, 50 articles from 42 studies (follow-ups of the same study were merged) remained for synthesis of the risk of bias (Cochrane Risk of bias tool).

Results

Thirteen studies were at “high” risk of bias, yielding 29 studies for meta-analysis. No difference on the POS after restoration placement (risk ratio [RR] 1.04; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.34) as well as in the retention rates for all follow-up periods was observed. The etch-and-rinse approach produced less marginal discoloration at 18 months to 2 years (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.90) and at 4 to 5 years (RR 1.81; 95% CI 1.28 to 2.55) (p < 0.0007).

Conclusions

The adhesive strategy did not influence the POS and the retention rates of composite resin in NCCLs in any of the follow-up periods; but less marginal discoloration was found in etch-and-rinse adhesives.

Clinical significance

Composite resin restorations placed with self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives produce restoration with the similar clinical service and POS, however using etch-and-rinse adhesives one can reduce marginal discoloration. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015019533.

Introduction

For the good performance of etch-and-rinse systems, a preliminary etching of the dental substrate with phosphoric acid is needed prior to the application of the bonding solution. The aim of this procedure is to remove the smear layer, which, in turn, increases the dentin permeability and hydraulic conductance of dentin .

An incomplete monomer penetration due to over-etching or inadequate adhesive application may leave voids in the hybridized area as well as denuded collagen fibrils allowing dentin fluid movement mainly under occlusal stress. The modification in the hydrodynamics of the dentinal fluids sensitizes the nerve endings and may cause postoperative sensitivity (POS). The fact that self-etch systems do not remove but incorporate the smear layer in the hybridized complex , has led to a widespread belief that self-etch systems produce composite restorations with less risk of POS . On the other hand, a recent meta-analysis about the effect of adhesive strategy in posterior composite restorations has pointed out that POS is a very infrequent finding , and not affected by the type of adhesive approach employed.

However, these conclusions cannot be extrapolated to other types of dental restorations. Differently from posterior restorations, cervical lesions are usually hypermineralized dentin lesions, characterized by the presence of dentin sclerotic casts within the dentin tubules . The etching of the cavity with the phosphoric acid from the etch-and-rinse adhesives remove partially the obliteration that occurs in exposed dentin of cervical lesion, which from a theoretical point of view, may lead to increased postoperative sensitivity .

Although there are previous systematic reviews of the literature published about the performance of adhesive systems on composite restorations in cervical lesions, most of them did not evaluate POS . Additionally, the risk of bias were not accessed in some studies or not taken this analysis into consideration when running the meta-analysis . Performing meta-analyses of studies that are at risk of bias may lead to deviation from the truth. If bias is present in each (or some) of the individual studies, meta-analysis will simply compound the errors, and produce a ‘wrong’ result that may be interpreted as having more credibility.

This may explain why controversial results have been published regarding the clinical performance of adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions. For instance, Krithikadatta and Chee et al. concluded that self-etch adhesive has the same clinical performance than etch-and-rinse adhesive despite the number of bonding steps. However, this does not agree with other systematic reviews that reported significant differences between self-etch adhesive and etch-and-rinse adhesive .

Therefore, the aim of this systematic review of the literature was to answer the following PICO question (P – participant; I – intervention; C – comparator; O – outcome) through a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials: “Is the risk of postoperative sensitivity (POS), retention rates and marginal discoloration of composite restorations [CR] bonded with self-etch (SE) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of adults equals to etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesives?”

Materials and methods

Protocol and registration

We registered this study protocol at the PROSPERO database under the registration number CRD42015019533, and we followed the recommendations of the PRISMA statement for the report of this systematic review .

Information sources and search strategy

The controlled vocabulary (mesh terms) and free keyword in the search strategy were defined based on the following elements of the PICOS question:

  • Population (P): adult patients with the need of non-carious cervical lesions restorations.

  • Intervention (I): placement of composite restorations with self-etch adhesives.

  • Comparison (C): the intervention should be compared with composite restorations placed with an etch-and-rinse adhesive.

  • The outcomes (O): risk and intensity of postoperative sensitivity, retention rates and marginal discoloration marginal.

  • Study design (S): randomized clinical trials.

To identify trials to be included for this review, we searched on the electronic databases MEDLINE via PubMeb, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO) and Cochrane Library ( Table 1 ). We hand-searched the reference lists of all primary studies for additional relevant publications. No restrictions were placed on the publication date or languages. In case earlier systematic reviews of the literature were identified, their reference lists were used as source information to identify eligible studies.

Table 1
Electronic database and search strategy (04/07/2016).
Pubmed
tooth erosion[Majr] OR tooth abrasion[Majr] OR tooth cervix[Majr] OR “non carious cervical lesion”[Title/Abstract] OR “non carious cervical lesions”[Title/Abstract] OR “noncarious cervical lesion”[Title/Abstract] OR “noncarious cervical lesions”[Title/Abstract] OR “cervical lesion”[Title/Abstract] OR “cervical lesions”[Title/Abstract] OR “class V”[Title/Abstract] OR “class 5”[Title/Abstract] OR abfraction[Title/Abstract] OR “tooth cervix”[Title/Abstract] OR dental restoration, permanent[MeSH Terms] #2 dentin-bonding agents[Major:noexp] OR “adhesive system”[Title/Abstract] OR “adhesive systems”[Title/Abstract] OR “bonding agent”[Title/Abstract] OR “bonding agents”[Title/Abstract] OR “dental adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “dental adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “dentin bonding agent”[Title/Abstract] OR “dentin bonding agents”[Title/Abstract] OR “adhesive material”[Title/Abstract] OR “adhesive materials”[Title/Abstract] OR “etch-and-rinse adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “etch-and-rinse adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “total-etch adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “total-etch adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “self-etch adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “self-etch adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “self-etching adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “self-etching adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “all-in-one adhesive”[Title/Abstract]) OR “all-in-one adhesives”[Title/Abstract] OR “one-bottle adhesive”[Title/Abstract] OR “one-bottle adhesives”[Title/Abstract] #3 composite resins[Mesh:noexp] OR “resin composite”[Title/Abstract] OR “resin composites”[Title/Abstract] OR “composite resin”[Title/Abstract] OR “composite resins”[Title/Abstract] OR “resin restoration”[Title/Abstract] OR “resin restorations”[Title/Abstract] OR “composite restoration”[Title/Abstract] OR “composite restorations”[Title/Abstract] #4 randomized controlled trial[pt] OR controlled clinical trial[pt] OR randomized controlled trials[mh] OR random allocation[mh] OR double-blind method[mh] OR single-blind method[mh] OR clinical trial[pt] OR clinical trials[mh] OR (“clinical trial”[tw]) OR ((singl*[tw] OR doubl*[tw] OR trebl*[tw] OR tripl*[tw]) AND (mask*[tw] OR blind*[tw])) OR (placebos[mh] OR placebo*[tw] OR random*[tw] OR research design[mh:noexp] OR comparative study[pt] OR evaluation studies as topic[mh] OR follow-up studies[mh] OR prospective studies[mh] OR control*[tw] OR prospective*[tw] OR volunteer*[tw]) NOT (animals[mh] NOT humans[mh]
#1 AND #2 AND #3 AND #4
Scopus
(TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “tooth erosion” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “tooth abrasion” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “tooth cervix” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “non carious cervical lesion” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “cervical lesion” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “class V” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “class 5” ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( abfraction ) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY ( “dental restoration” )) #2 TITLE-ABS-KEY(“adhesive system”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“bonding agent”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“dental adhesive”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“dentin bonding agent”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“adhesive material”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“etch-and-rinse adhesive”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“total-etch adhesive”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“self-etch* adhesive”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“all-in-one adhesive”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“one-bottle adhesive”) #3 TITLE-ABS-KEY(“composite resin”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“resin composite”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“resin restoration”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY(“composite restoration”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Classe 5”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“Class V”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (“cervical lesion”) OR TITLE(“noncarious cervical lesions”)
#1 AND #2 AND #3
Web of Science
Tópico: (“tooth erosion”) OR Tópico: (“tooth abrasion”) OR Tópico: (“tooth cervix”) OR Tópico: (“noncarious cervical lesion*”) OR Tópico: (non carious cervical lesion*”) OR Tópico: (“cervical lesion*”) OR Tópico: (class V) OR Tópico: (“class 5) OR Tópico: (abfraction) OR Tópico: (“dental restoration*”) #2 Topic: (“adhesive system*”) OR Topic: (“bonding agent*”) OR Topic: (“dental adhesive*”) OR Topic: (“dentin bonding agent*”) OR Topic: (“adhesive material*”) OR Topic: (“etch and rinse adhesive*”) OR Topic: (“total etch adhesive*”) OR Topic: (“self etch* adhesive*”) OR Topic: (“all in one adhesive*”) OR Topic: (“one bottle adhesive*”) #3 Topic: (“resin composite*”) OR Topic: (“composite resin*”) OR Topic: (“resin restoration*”) OR Topic: (“composite restoration*”)
#1 AND #2 AND #3
Lilacs and BBO
(MH:“tooth erosion” OR MH:“tooth abrasion” OR MH:“tooth cervix” OR “dental restoration, permanent” OR “non carious cervical lesion” OR “non carious cervical lesions” OR “noncarious cervical lesion” OR “noncarious cervical lesions” OR “lesiones cervicales no cariosas” OR “lesões cervicais não cariosas” OR “cervical lesion” OR “cervical lesions” OR “lesiones cervicales” OR “lesões cervicais” OR “class V” OR “class 5” OR “clase V” OR “clase 5” OR “lesiones clase V” OR “cavidade classe V” OR “cavidades classe V” OR abfraction OR “abfração” OR “abfracción” OR “tooth cervix”) #2 (MH:“adesivos dentinários” OR “adhesive sytem” OR “adhesive systems” OR “sistema adesivo” OR “sistemas adesivos” OR “sistema adhesivo” OR “sistemas adhesivos” OR “bonding agent” OR “bonding agents” OR “agentes de união” OR “agentes de unión” OR “agentes de ligación” OR “agentes de enlace” OR “dental adhesive” OR “dental adhesives” OR “adesivo dentinário” OR “adesivos dentinários” OR “adhesivos dentinarios” OR “adhesive material” OR “adhesive materials” OR “dentin bonding agent” OR “dentin bonding agents” OR “etch-and-rinse adhesive” OR “etch-and-rinse adhesives” OR “adesivo convencional” OR “adesivos convencionais” OR “adhesivo convencional” OR “adhesivos convencionales” OR “total-etch adhesive” OR “total-etch adhesives” OR “condicionamento ácido total” OR “adhesivo de grabado total” OR “adhesivos de grabado total” OR “self-etch adhesive” OR “self-etch adhesives” OR “adesivo autocondicionante” OR “adesivos autocondicionantes” OR “adhesivo autograbado” OR “adhesivos autograbados” OR “self-etching adhesive” OR “self-etching adhesives” OR “all-in-one adhesive” OR “all-in-one adhesives” OR “adesivo de passo único” OR “adesivos de passo único” OR “adhesivo de paso unico” OR “adhesivos de passo unico” OR “one-bottle adhesive” OR “one-bottle adhesives” OR “adesivo de frasco único” OR “adesivos de frasco único”) #3 (MH:“resinas compostas” OR “resin composite” OR “resin composites” OR “resina composta” OR “resinas compostas” OR “resina compuesta” OR “resinas compuestas” OR “composite resin” OR “composite resins” OR “compósito” OR “compósitos” OR “resin restoration” OR “resin restorations” OR “restauração de resina” OR “restauração de resinas” OR “restauración de resina” OR “restauraciones de resina” OR “composite restoration” OR “composite restorations” OR “restauração de compósito” OR “restaurações de compósitos” OR “restauração de resina composta” OR “restaurações de resinas compostas”)
#1 AND #2 AND #3
Cochrane Library
#1 MeSH descriptor: [Tooth Erosion] explode all trees
#2 MeSH descriptor: [Tooth Abrasion] explode all trees
#3 MeSH descriptor: [Tooth Cervix] explode all trees
#4 MeSH descriptor: [Dental Restoration, Permanent] explode all trees
#5 “non carious cervical lesion”:ti,ab,kw
#6 “non carious cervical lesions”:ti,ab,kw
#7 “noncarious cervical lesions”:ti,ab,kw
#8 “non-carious cervical lesion”:ti,ab,kw
#9 “non-carious cervical lesions”:ti,ab,kw
#10 cervical next lesion?:ti,ab,kw
#11 “class V”:ti,ab,kw
#12 “class 5”:ti,ab,kw
#13 abfraction:ti,ab,kw
#14 “tooth cervix”:ti,ab,kw
#15 #1 or #2 or #3 or #4
#16 [mh ^“dentin bonding agents” [mj]]
#17 adhesive next system:ti,ab,kw
#18 bonding next agent*:ti,ab,kw
#19 dental next adhesive*:ti,ab,kw
#20 “dentin bonding agent”:ti,ab,kw
#21 “dentin bonding agents”:ti,ab,kw
#22 adhesive next material*:ti,ab,kw
#23 “etch and rinse adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#24 “etch and rinse adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#25 “total etch adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#26 “total etch adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#27 “self etch adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#28 “self etch adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#29 “self etching adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#30 “self etching adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#31 “all in one adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#32 “all in one adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#33 “one bottle adhesive”:ti,ab,kw
#34 “one bottle adhesives”:ti,ab,kw
#35 #16 or #17 or #18 or #19 or #20 or #21 or #22 or #23 or #24 or #25 or #26 or #27 or #28 or #29 or #30 or #31 or #32 or #33 or #34
#36 MeSH descriptor: [Composite Resins] this term only
#37 resin next composite*:ti,ab,kw
#38 composite next resin*
#39 resin next restoration*
#40 composite next restoration*:ti,ab,kw
#41 #37 or #38 or #39 or #40
#42 #15 and #35 and #41

The abstracts of the annual conference of the International Association for Dental Research (IADR) and their regional divisions (1990–2015) were also searched. Authors were contacted and asked whether they have published a full text article or research report where more details about the methodology and results could be found. The grey literature was explored using the database System for Information on Grey literature in Europe (SIGLE). Dissertations and theses were searched using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Full text database as well as the Periódicos Capes Theses database.

To locate unpublished and ongoing trials related to the review question, the following trials registry were also searched: Current Controlled Trials ( www.controlled-trials.com ), International Clinical trials registry platform ( apps.who.int/trialsearch/ ), the ClinicalTrials.gov ( www.clinicaltrials.gov ), Rebec ( www.rebec.gov.br ) and EU Clinical Trials Register ( www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu ).

The search strategy along with the date of search for all databases was included in Table 1 . This search strategy was appropriately modified for each database to identify eligible studies. Full text versions of the papers that appeared to meet the inclusion criteria were retrieved for further assessment and data extraction.

Eligibility criteria

We included only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with parallel or split-mouth design ( Table 1 ) that compared both adhesive strategies. No minimum follow-up period was established since one of the outcomes of interest was the POS after restoration placement. Additionally, RCT studies were excluded if 1) other cavity types were treated other than NCCLs; 2) bases or liners were always used before adhesive application; 3) silorane-based adhesives were employed; 4) chemically-cured adhesives were used; 5) restorations were placed in primary teeth; 6) etch-an-rinse adhesives with phosphoric acid concentrations lower than 20% were employed; 7) composite resins were not employed as restorative materials.

Study selection and data collection process

Initially, the articles were selected by title and abstracts according to the previously described search strategy. Articles appearing in more than one database were considered only once. Full reports were also obtained when there was insufficient information in the title and abstract to make a clear decision. Subsequently, full-text articles were acquired and two reviewers classified those, which met the inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted relevant information about the study design; participants, interventions and outcomes were extracted using customized extraction forms ( Table 2 ).

Table 2
Summary of the studies included in this systematic review.
Study ID Follow-up Study design [Evaluation criteria] Subjects’ age mean ± SD [range] (yrs) Number of subjects [Male%] Placement technique Rubber dam? Mechanical preparation? Postoperative evaluation (POS) Type of adhesive – Adhesive brand + composite resin brand
(only data from groups employed in this systematic review are reported)
Number of restorations per group
Stimulus? Type? Outcome evaluated
1. Abdalla 2006 1, 2 yrs Multiple restorations
[modified USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r. 48 [n.r.] Incremental Yes Dentin roughening n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Admira Bond a
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b
SE2 – Hybrid Bond c
ER1 − 65
SE1 − 65
SE2 − 65
2. Araújo 2013 6 mths, 1 yr Multiple restorations
[modified USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r. 17 [n.r.] Incremental No Dentin roughening n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Adper Scotchbond MP d
SE1 – Adper Easy One d
ER1 − 31
SE1 − 31
3. Armstrong 2012 6 mths, 1, 2 and 3 yrs Paired [FDI] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
30 [53%] Incremental No No No Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
SE1 – Tokuyama Bond Force f
ER1 − 30
SE1 − 30
4. Batalha-Silva 2009 6 mths and 1 yr n.r. [n.r.] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
n.r. [n.r.] n.r. n.r. n.r. Yes/No n.r. Risk of POS ER1 – Adper Single Bond 2 d
SE1 – Clearfil Protect Bond b
ER1 − 35
SE1 − 35
5. Bittencourt 2005 6 mths, 1, 1.5 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 35 ± n.r. 25 [48%] Incremental Yes No No Risk of POS ER1 – Single Bond d
SE1 – Adper Prompt d
ER1 − 31
SE1 − 31
6. Blunck 2013 1 and 2 yrs Paired
[USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r.]
60 [n.r.] Incremental No n.r. Yes Air, Tactile Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
SE1 – iBond SE g
SE2 – G-Bond h
SE3 – Clearfil Tri-S Bond b
ER1 − 60
ER2 − 60
ER3 − 60
7. Brackett 2005 6 mths, 1 and 1.5 yrs Paired [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. 25 [n.r.] Bulk No No n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – One Step i
SE1 – Tyrian SPE i
ER1 − 38
ER2 − 38
8. Burgess 2013 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Paired [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r.]
52 [n.r.] Incremental Yes Enamel beveling (0.5 mm) Yes Cold
(3 s)
Intensity of POS ER1 – Adper Single bond Plus d
SE1 – Adper Scotchbond SE d
SE2 – Adper Easy Bond d
ER1 − 52
SE1 − 52
SE2 − 52
9. Burrow 2007 1, 2 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [FDI] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r.]
20 [n.r.] Incremental/Bulk n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Single bond d
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b
ER1 − 30
SE1 − 31
10. Dalkilic 2012 3 mths; 1, 2 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. 29 [55%] Incremental No Removal of sclerotic dentin in some groups with a bur Yes Air stream (3 s at 2.5 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Single Bond d with and without bur
ER2–37% phosphoric acid + Clearfil SE Bond b + bur
ER3–37% phosphoric acid + Xeno III j + bur
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b with and without bur
SE2 – Xeno III j with and without bur
ER1 − 60
ER2 − 30
ER3 − 30
SE1 − 72
SE2 − 50
11. Dall’orologio 2006 3, 5, 6 and 7 yrs Paired
[modified USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r. 50 [44%] Incremental n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Scotchbond MultiPurpose Plus d
SE1 – iBond g
SE2 – AQ Bond c
ER1 − 50
SE 1 − 50
SE2 − 50
12. Daudt 2013 1 yr Paired [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. 38 [n.r.] Incremental Yes/No No Yes Air stream (1 s at 1 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Adper Single bond 2 d
SE1 – Adper SE Plus d
ER1 − 70
SE1 − 70
13. Dutra-Correa 2013 6 mths and 1.5 yrs Multiple restorations
[modified USPHS]
48.7 ± n.r. 37 [n.r.] Incremental No No No Risk of POS ER1 – XP Bond j
ER2 – CHX + XP Bond j
SE1 – Xeno V j
SE2 – CHX + Xeno V j
ER1 −31
ER2 − 28
SE1 − 30
SE2 − 31
14. Ermis 2012 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Multiple restorations
[modified Vanherle technique]
50 ± 8.3 16 [75%] Incremental No Dentin roughening and enamel beveling (1 − 2 mm) Yes Air stream (3 s at 2–3 mm) and tactile Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
SE1 – Clearfil S3 Bond b
ER1 − 80
SE1 − 81
15. Friedl 2004 2 yrs n.r. [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. [n.r.] n.r. [n.r.] n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – EBS d
SE1 – Prompt L-Pop d
ER1 − 61
SE1 − 61
16. Fron 2011 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Paired
[simplified binary FDI]
53.2 ± 13.7 28 [39%] Incremental No Removal of sclerotic dentin and enamel beveling (1–2 mm) n.r. n.r. Risk of POS ER1–40% phosphoric acid + Bond Force f
SE 1 – Bond Force f
ER1 − 28
SE1 − 28
17. Hafer 2015 6 mths, 1, 2 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [FDI] 46.6 ± 14 40 [n.r.] Incremental/Bulk Yes Preparation of the dentin and enamel walls n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Solo Bond M a
ER2 – Syntac Classic k
SE1 – Futurabond M a
ER1 − 40
ER2 − 30
SE1 − 40
18. Helbig 2004 6 mths, 1, 2 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
40 [n.r.] n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Solobond M a
SE1 – Futurabond a
ER1 − 46
SE1 − 43
19. Kim 2009 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 50 ± n.r. 39 [n.r.] Incremental No Removal of sclerotic dentin and enamel beveling (0.5 mm) No Risk of POS ER1 – Scotchbond Multi-purpose d with and without retentive grooves
ER3 – Experimental adhesive l with and without retentive groove
SE1 – Adper Prompt d with and without retentive groove
ER1 − 50
ER2 − 50
SE1 − 50
20. Kubo 2006 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 61.3 ± n.r. 8 [50%] Bulk No Enamel and dentin roughening + enamel beveling (n.r.) n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Single Bond d
SE1 – Clearfil Liner Bond II b
SE2 – Clearfil Liner Bond II b + selective enamel etching
ER1 − 35
SE1 − 27
SE2 − 10
21. Lawson 2015 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Parallel
[modified USPHS]
60.1 ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
37 [48%] Incremental Yes Enamel beveling (0.5 mm) Yes Cold (3 s) Intensity of POS ER1 – Scotchbond Multi-purpose d
ER2 – Scothbond Universal d etch-and-rinse
SE1 – Scotchbond Universal d self-etch
ER1 − 42
ER2 − 42
SE1 − 42
22. Lee 2006 6 mths Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
39 [n.r.] n.r. n.r Grooves were prepared in half of the cavities n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Scotchbond MultiPurpose Plus d with and without grooves
ER2 – BC Plus l with and withou grooves
SE1 – Adper Prompt d with and without grooves
ER1 − 50
ER1 − 5o
ER2 − 50
23. Loguercio 2008 6 mths, 1 and 1.5 yrs Paired [modified USPHS] 38 ± n.r. 29 [52%] Incremental Yes No No Risk of POS ER1 – One Step Plus i – two coats
ER2 – One Step Plus i – four coats
SE 1 – Tyrian i – two coats
SE2 – Tyrian i – four coats
ER1 − 29
ER2 − 29
SE1 − 29
SE2 − 29
24. Loguercio 2015 6 mths, 1.5 and 3 yrs Paired [FDI and modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
39 [62%] Incremental Yes No Yes Air stream (10 s at 2 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Scotchbond Universal d etch-and-rinse moist dentin
ER2 – Scotchbond Universal d etch-and-rinse dry dentin
SE 1 – Scotchbond Universal d self-etch + selective enamel etching
SE2 – Scotchbond Universal d self-etch
ER1 − 50
ER2 − 50
SE1 − 50
SE2 − 50
25. Moosavi 2013 6 mths, 1 and 1.5 yrs Paired [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. 30 [n.r.] Incremental No Internal walls were roughened Yes Air stream (3 s at 1 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
ER2 – Optibond Solo e
SE1 – Optibond All-in-one e
ER1 − 30
ER2 − 30
SE1 − 30
26. Oliveira 2013 1 and 2 yrs Paired
[modified USPHS]
39 ± n.r. 15 [n.r.] Incremental No Enamel beveling (n.r.) Yes Air stream (3 s at 2–3 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Peak LC Bond m
ER2–35% phosphoric acid + Clearfil Protect Bond b
SE1 – Clearfil Protect Bond b
ER1 − 30
ER2 − 30
SE1 − 30
27. Paula 2015 1 yr Multiple restorations
[FDI and modified USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r – n.r.]
35 [46%] Incremental Yes No Yes Air stream (10 s at 2 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
ER2 – Optibond Solo Plus e
SE1 – Optibond XTR e
SE2 – Optibond All-in-One e
ER1 − 46
ER2 − 44
SE1 − 44
SE2 − 46
28. Pavolucci 2010 1, 2 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r – n.r.]
14 [n.r.] n.r. n.r. n.r n.r n.r. n.r. ER1 – Gluma Comfort Bond g
SE1 – iBond g
ER1 − 26
SE1 − 26
29. Perdigão 2012 6 mths and 1.5 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 47.6 ± n.r. 39 [n.r.] Incremental No No No Risk of POS ER1 – Adper Scotchbond Multi-purpose d
ER2 – Adper Single Bond Plus d
SE1 – Adper Scotchbond SE d
SE2 – Adper Easy Bond d
ER1 − 29
ER2 − 32
SE1 − 30
SE2 − 34
30. Ritter 2008 6 mths, 1.5 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 55 ± n.r. 30 [43%] Incremental Yes/No Enamel and dentin walls were roughened No Risk of POS ER1 – Gluma Solid Bond g (dentin sclerosis degree 1 and 2)
SE1 – iBond g (dentin sclerosis degree 1 and 2)
SE2 – iBon d (dentin sclerosis degree 3 and 4)
ER1 − 26
SE1 − 28
SE2 − 25
31. Sartori 2011 6 mths, 1.5 and 2.5 yrs Multiple restorations
[modified USPHS]
n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
27 [n.r.] Incremental No No Yes Air stream
(1 s at 1 cm)
Risk of POS ER1 – Solobond M a
SE1 – Futurabond NR a
ER1 − 33
SE1 − 30
32. Stojanac 2013 1 and 2 yrs Split mouth [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. 30 [n.r.] Incremental No No No Risk of POS ER1 – Prime & Bond NT j
SE1 – AdheSE k
SE2 – Xeno III j
ER1 − 30
SE1 − 30
SE2 − 30
33. Tian 2014 6 mths and 1.5 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
50 [n.r.] Incremental n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Tetric N Bond k
SE1 – Tetric N Bond Self Etch k
ER1 − 44
SE1 − 44
34. Tuncer 2013 1 and 2 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 58 ± n.r. 24 [63%] Bulk No Enamel and dentin walls were roughened n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – Solobond M a
SE1 – Futurabond NR a
ER1 − 62
SE1 − 61
35. Turkun 2003 6 mths, 1 and 2 yrs Paired [modified USPHS] 46 ± n.r. 32 [41%] Incremental No Enamel and dentin walls were roughened No Risk of POS ER1 – Prime & Bond NT j
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b
ER1 − 49
SE1 − 49
36. Van Dijken 2004 1, 1.5 and 2 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 58 ± n.r. 90 [64%] Incremental No Half of the lesions were slightly roughened n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – One Coat Bond n
SE1 – Clearfil Liner Bond 2 b
SE2 – Prompt L-Pop d
ER1 − 46
SE1 − 46
SE2 − 52
37. Van Dijken 2010 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 60.1 ± n.r. 72 [42%] Incremental No Half of the lesions were roughened n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – PQ1 m
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b
ER1 − 64
SE − 55
38. Van Dijken 2013 6 mths, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4 and 5 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 60.1 ± n.r. 67 [51%] Incremental No Half of the lesions were roughened No Risk of POS ER1 – XP Bond j
ER2 – CFM o
SE1 – G-Bond h
ER1 − 51
ER2 − 51
SE1 − 67
39. Van Landuyt 2014 6 mths, 1, 2, 3 and 5 yrs Multiple restorations [Vanherle method] n.r. ± n.r.
[n.r. – n.r.]
52 [48%] Incremental No Lesion roughening and enamel beveling (1–2 mm) Yes Air stream (3 s at 2 − 3 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Optibond FL e
SE1 – G-Bond h
ER1 − 134
SE1 − 133
40. Walter 2013 6 mths, 1.5 and 2.5 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] n.r. ± n.r. [n.r.] 39 [33%] Incremental No Lesion was roughened n.r. n.r. n.r. ER1 – XP Bond j
SE2 – Xeno III j
SE3 – Xeno IV j
ER1 + SE1 + SE2 = 120
41. Yaman 2014 6 mths, 1, 2 and 3 yrs Multiple restorations [modified USPHS] 45.1 ± n.r. 24 [54%] Incremental No Removal of sclerotic dentin and enamel beveling (1 to mm) Yes Air stream (3 s at 3 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – XP Bond j
SE1 – Clearfil SE Bond b
ER1 − 35
SE1 − 35
42. Yousaf 2014 baseline Parallel [only evaluated POS] 34.5 ± 6.0
[n.r. – n.r.]
70 [53%] n.r. No Cavity preparation to reach the dimensions of 3 mm x 3 mm x 3 mm deep Yes Cold (5 s at 2 cm) Risk of POS ER1 – Eco-etch k
SE1 – AdheSE k
ER1 − 35
SE1 − 35
Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Jun 17, 2018 | Posted by in General Dentistry | Comments Off on Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Premium Wordpress Themes by UFO Themes