Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 258-265
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736332
Review Article

Comparison of Self-Etching Adhesives and Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives on the Failure Rate of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Basílio Rodrigues Vieira
1   Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
,
Eugênia Lívia de Andrade Dantas
1   Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
,
Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti
2   Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
,
Bianca Marques Santiago
2   Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
,
Frederico Barbosa de Sousa
3   Department of Morphology, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the comparison of self-etching adhesives and etch-and-rinse adhesives with respect to the failure rate of posterior composite resin restorations. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017078015), following PRISMA recommendations and PICO search strategy. Literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library through July 2021. Six studies from five randomized clinical trials were included in the qualitative synthesis. The funnel plot detected important bias (all studies out of the funnel area). The meta-analysis showed a positive summary Cohen H effect size of 0.406 (95% CI: 0.100; 0.713, p = 0.009), favoring etch-and-rinse adhesives. The total number of failures (including restorations that required replacement and those that did not require replacement) were attributed to either marginal adaptation (five studies) or marginal staining (one study). A very low certainty of the evidence was obtained through GRADE analysis. In conclusion, current available evidence indicates that etch-and rinse adhesives performed better (with a low effect size) than self-etching adhesives in terms of failure rates in posterior composite restorations.

Keywords

dentine adhesives - resin composite - dental restoration - failures - clinical studies - meta-analysis


Publication History

Article published online:
22 November 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017; 8 (01) 1-17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Häfer M, Schneider H, Rupf S. et al. Experimental and clinical evaluation of a self-etching and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15 (03) 275-286
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP. et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (01) 3-10
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH. How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate simultaneously?. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4 (04) 255-269
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent 2012; 40 (09) 703-710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31 (Suppl. 01) e56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J 2011; 30 (03) 374-383
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 2011; 39 (01) 16-25
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (06) 1371-1379
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31 (04) 337-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Szklo M, Nieto J. Epidemiology: Beyond the Basic. 4th ed.. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2019
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Maia LC, Antonio AG. Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 37 (02) 117-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Chacón-Moscoso S. Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2003; 8 (04) 448-467
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Boslaught S. Statistics in a Nutshell—A Desktop Quick Reference. O'Reilly; 2nd ed.;. 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a Microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5 (01) 52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2001; 6 (03) 203-217
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (10) 1046-1055
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Version 3.0 December 2016. Accessed on July 1, 2021 at: http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Anauate-Netto C. et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of self-etching adhesives in posterior restorations. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11 (02) 149-159
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Three-year randomized clinical study of a one-step universal adhesive and a two-step self-etch adhesive in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19 (04) 287-294
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Durability of a low shrinkage TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in Class II restorations. A 6-year follow up. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (08) 944-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Çakır NN, Demirbuga S. The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (06) 2767-2776
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. a status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22 (01) 7-34
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 De Munck J, Mine A, Poitevin A. et al. Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res 2012; 91 (04) 351-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Peumans M, De Munck J, Mine A, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. A systematic review. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (10) 1089-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar