Editorial Type:
Article Category: Review Article
 | 
Online Publication Date: 03 Jul 2023

Does Acid Etching Influence the Adhesion of Universal Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

,
,
,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 373 – 390
DOI: 10.2341/22-067-LIT
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

Objective:

To evaluate the adhesion of universal adhesive systems to the dentin of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods:

Systematic electronic searches were performed by two independent reviewers into the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December of 2021. Only randomized clinical trials were selected, comparing etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies and using universal adhesive systems in NCCLs. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered into PROSPERO.

Results:

After the removal of duplicates, 170 articles were identified. In an initial screening of titles and abstracts, 146 records did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were, therefore, excluded. Twenty-four studies were eligible for evaluation of the full text, and four were excluded after this step. Finally, 20 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Conclusion:

This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that applying universal adhesive systems in the etch-and-rinse strategy could lead to better medium-term (>12 to 36 months) retention of NCCL restorations than the self-etch strategy, as well as resulting in lower percentages of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries. However, the use of a self-etching strategy can lead to lower postoperative sensitivity.

Copyright: 2023
Figure 1.
Figure 1.

Flow diagram of study. Reprinted from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, & the PRISMA Group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement PLoS Medicine 6(7) e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 http://www.prisma-statement.org. Used by permission.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

Risk of bias.

Figure 3.
Figure 3.

Forest plot for retention. Abbreviations: ER, etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 4.
Figure 4.

Forest plot for marginal discoloration. Abbreviations: ER, etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 5.
Figure 5.

Forest plot for marginal adaptation. Abbreviations: ER, etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 6.
Figure 6.

Forest plot for secondary caries. Abbreviations: ER, etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Figure 7.
Figure 7.

Forest plot for post operative sensitivity. Abbreviations: ER, etch-and-rinse; SE, self-etch; M-H, Mantel-Haenszel.

Contributor Notes

*Corresponding author: Avenue General Newton Cavalcanti, 1650, Camaragibe 54.753-220, Pernambuco, Brazil; e-mail: claudia.geisa@upe.br
Accepted: 28 Jan 2023
  • Download PDF