-
Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) Jul 2022Tooth wear is considered a well-developed issue in daily clinical practice; however, there is no standard protocol for treatment. The aim of this manuscript was to... (Review)
Review
Tooth wear is considered a well-developed issue in daily clinical practice; however, there is no standard protocol for treatment. The aim of this manuscript was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the clinical outcomes of direct or indirect restorations for treating tooth wear. A literature search was conducted through the PubMed MedLine, Scopus, ISI Web of Science, Scielo, and EMBASE databases up to 29 April 2022. Clinical studies evaluating the clinical performance of direct or indirect restorations for treating tooth wear for a minimum follow-up of 6 months were included in the review. A total of 2776 records were obtained from the search databases. After full-text reading, 16 studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Considering the high heterogenicity of the studies included, a meta-analysis could not be performed. All studies included the rehabilitation of anterior and posterior teeth with extensive wear, using both indirect and direct restorations for a maximum follow-up of 10 years. Restoration materials included ceramo-metal crowns, full gold crowns, lithium disilicate ceramic, zirconia, polymer infiltrated ceramic networks, and resin composites. Most of the reports assessed the survival rate of the restorations and the clinical features using the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Evaluation System criteria. Contradictory discoveries were perceived concerning the type of restoration with better clinical performance. Considering the current literature available, there is no evidence in the superiority of any restoration technique to ensure the highest clinical performance for treating tooth wear.
PubMed: 36004871
DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering9080346 -
Journal of Clinical Medicine Feb 2022Bruxism and gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) can lead to wear of the dental tissues. Wear has a mechanical or chemical origin, and it is of extrinsic or intrinsic type.... (Review)
Review
Bruxism and gastroesophageal reflux (GERD) can lead to wear of the dental tissues. Wear has a mechanical or chemical origin, and it is of extrinsic or intrinsic type. Bruxism and GERD are two etiological factors of dental wear. The intrinsic mechanical wear (abfraction) of Bruxism and intrinsic chemical wear (erosion) of GERD are both involved in sleep disorders; indeed, they could have associations and act in synergy in dental wear. The purpose of this review was to find out the possible associations between bruxism and GERD and their effects on tooth wear. The research was conducted on PubMed and the Cochrane Library using the following Keywords/Mesh Terms: Tooth wear, Bruxism, Sleep Bruxism, Sleep Disorders, or GERD. Only systematic reviews and clinical studies performed exclusively on human subjects were included in the review. Initially, the research gave more than 630 results on dental wear, bruxism and GERD and after application of the inclusion criteria irrelevant studies were excluded, and 5 studies were finally included in this review. It was possible to observe the presence of some associations between the two problems (reflux and GERD) and hypothesize negative effects on tooth wear. This research revealed the presence of an interconnection between these three problems (reflux, GERD and tooth wear) that can further act in synergy by attacking the hard dental tissues both from a chemical (reflux) and mechanical (bruxism) point of view. The dentist could play a role of "sentinel" in a multidisciplinary team, intercepting these problems early in order to treat them in the most appropriate way. PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021234209.
PubMed: 35207380
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11041107 -
Journal of Clinical and Experimental... Mar 2017To systematically review the literature on the "all-on-four" treatment concept regarding its indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and technical and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the literature on the "all-on-four" treatment concept regarding its indications, surgical procedures, prosthetic protocols and technical and biological complications after at least three years in function.
STUDY DESIGN
The three major electronic databases were screened: MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library of the Cochrane Collaboration (CENTRAL). In addition, electronic screening was made of the 'grey literature' using the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe - Open Grey, covering the period from January 2005 up to and including April 2016.
RESULTS
A total of 728 articles were obtained from the initial screening process. Of these articles, 24 fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality assessment showed sample size calculation to be reported by only one study, and follow-up did not include a large number of participants - a fact that may introduce bias and lead to misleading interpretations of the study results.
CONCLUSIONS
The all-on-four treatment concept offers a predictable way to treat the atrophic jaw in patients that do not prefer regenerative procedures, which increase morbidity and the treatment fees. The results obtained indicate a survival rate for more than 24 months of 99.8%. However, current evidence is limited due the scarcity of information referred to methodological quality, a lack of adequate follow-up, and sample attrition. Biological complications (e.g., peri-implantitis) are reported in few patients after a mean follow-up of two years. Adequate definition of the success / survival criteria is thus necessary, due the high prevalence of peri-implant diseases. All-on-four, all-on-4, tilted implants, dental prostheses, immediate loading.
PubMed: 28298995
DOI: 10.4317/jced.53613 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched up until December 2018. The manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and relevant journals. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between T2DM and periodontitis were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using STATA.
RESULTS
A total of 53 observational studies were included. The Adjusted T2DM prevalence was significantly higher in periodontitis patients (OR = 4.04, p = 0.000), and vice versa (OR = 1.58, p = 0.000). T2DM patients had significantly worse periodontal status, as reflected in a 0.61 mm deeper periodontal pocket, a 0.89 mm higher attachment loss and approximately 2 more lost teeth (all p = 0.000), than those without T2DM. The results of the cohort studies found that T2DM could elevate the risk of developing periodontitis by 34% (p = 0.002). The glycemic control of T2DM patients might result in different periodontitis outcomes. Severe periodontitis increased the incidence of T2DM by 53% (p = 0.000), and this result was stable. In contrast, the impact of mild periodontitis on T2DM incidence (RR = 1.28, p = 0.007) was less robust.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an evident bidirectional relationship between T2DM and periodontitis. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm this finding. Our results suggest that both dentists and physicians need to be aware of the strong connection between periodontitis and T2DM. Controlling these two diseases might help prevent each other's incidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis
PubMed: 32652980
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01180-w -
Journal of Dental Sciences Jan 2021In the recent years artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized in the field of dentistry. The aim of this systematic review was to document the scope and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND/PURPOSE
In the recent years artificial intelligence (AI) has revolutionized in the field of dentistry. The aim of this systematic review was to document the scope and performance of the artificial intelligence based models that have been widely used in orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning, and predicting the prognosis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The literature for this paper was identified and selected by performing a thorough search for articles in the electronic data bases like Pubmed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Google scholar, Scopus and Web of science, Saudi digital library published over the past two decades (January 2000-February 2020). After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 16 articles were read in full and critically analyzed. QUADAS-2 were adapted for quality analysis of the studies included.
RESULTS
AI technology has been widely applied for identifying cephalometric landmarks, determining need for orthodontic extractions, determining the degree of maturation of the cervical vertebra, predicting the facial attractiveness after orthognathic surgery, predicting the need for orthodontic treatment, and orthodontic treatment planning. Most of these artificial intelligence models are based on either artificial neural networks (ANNs) or convolutional neural networks (CNNs).
CONCLUSION
The results from these reported studies are suggesting that these automated systems have performed exceptionally well, with an accuracy and precision similar to the trained examiners. These systems can simplify the tasks and provide results in quick time which can save the dentist time and help the dentist to perform his duties more efficiently. These systems can be of great value in orthodontics.
PubMed: 33384838
DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.05.022 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Sep 2023High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
High-level evidence concerning the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth by means of direct composite resin or indirect restorations is lacking.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the current literature on the direct and indirect restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Databases MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE were screened. Risk of bias was assessed by using the ROB2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for prospective and retrospective clinical studies. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and prospective and retrospective studies comparing direct composite resin and indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth were included. Outcomes were tooth and restoration survival. A meta-analysis was conducted for tooth retention and restorative success.
RESULTS
Twenty-two studies were included (2 RCTs, 3 prospective, and 17 retrospective). Over the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggested no difference in tooth survival. For the prospective and retrospective clinical trials, the overall risk of bias was serious to critical from the risk of confounding because of a difference in restorative indication: Direct restorations were fabricated when one marginal ridge remained or when tooth prognosis was unfavorable. For short-term restorative success, low-quality evidence suggested no difference between the direct and indirect restorations.
CONCLUSIONS
For the short term (2.5 to 3 years), low-quality evidence suggests no difference in tooth survival or restoration quality. To assess the influence of the type of restoration on the survival and restorative success of endodontically treated posterior teeth, clinical trials that control for the amount of coronal tooth tissue and other baseline characteristics are needed.
Topics: Humans; Composite Resins; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Molar; Retrospective Studies; Dental Restoration Failure; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 34980474
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.009 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The most frequent indications for tooth extractions, generally performed by general dental practitioners, are dental caries and periodontal infections. Systemic antibiotics may be prescribed to patients undergoing extractions to prevent complications due to infection. This is an update of a review first published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effect of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis on the prevention of infectious complications following tooth extractions.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register (to 16 April 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2020, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 April 2020), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 April 2020), and LILACS (1982 to 16 April 2020). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of systemic antibiotic prophylaxis in patients undergoing tooth extraction(s) for any indication.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently performed data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment for the included studies. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. For continuous outcomes, we used mean differences (MD) with 95% CI using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity. We assessed the certainty of the body of evidence for key outcomes as high, moderate, low, or very low, using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 23 trials that randomised approximately 3206 participants (2583 analysed) to prophylactic antibiotics or placebo. Although general dentists perform dental extractions because of severe dental caries or periodontal infection, only one of the trials evaluated the role of antibiotic prophylaxis in groups of patients affected by those clinical conditions. We assessed 16 trials as being at high risk of bias, three at low risk, and four as unclear. Compared to placebo, antibiotics may reduce the risk of postsurgical infectious complications in patients undergoing third molar extractions by approximately 66% (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.64; 1728 participants; 12 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 19 people (95% CI 15 to 34) need to be treated with antibiotics to prevent one infection following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. Antibiotics may also reduce the risk of dry socket by 34% (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.97; 1882 participants; 13 studies; low-certainty evidence), which means that 46 people (95% CI 29 to 62) need to take antibiotics to prevent one case of dry socket following extraction of impacted wisdom teeth. The evidence for our other outcomes is uncertain: pain, whether measured dichotomously as presence or absence (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.12; 675 participants; 3 studies) or continuously using a visual analogue scale (0-to-10-centimetre scale, where 0 is no pain) (MD -0.26, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.07; 422 participants; 4 studies); fever (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 475 participants; 4 studies); and adverse effects, which were mild and transient (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.81 to 2.64; 1277 participants; 8 studies) (very low-certainty evidence). We found no clear evidence that the timing of antibiotic administration (preoperative, postoperative, or both) was important. The included studies enrolled a subset of patients undergoing dental extractions, that is healthy people who had surgical extraction of third molars. Consequently, the results of this review may not be generalisable to all people undergoing tooth extractions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority (21 out of 23) of the trials included in this review included only healthy patients undergoing extraction of impacted third molars, often performed by oral surgeons. None of the studies evaluated tooth extraction in immunocompromised patients. We found low-certainty evidence that prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of infection and dry socket following third molar extraction when compared to placebo, and very low-certainty evidence of no increase in the risk of adverse effects. On average, treating 19 healthy patients with prophylactic antibiotics may stop one person from getting an infection. It is unclear whether the evidence in this review is generalisable to patients with concomitant illnesses or patients at a higher risk of infection. Due to the increasing prevalence of bacteria that are resistant to antibiotic treatment, clinicians should evaluate if and when to prescribe prophylactic antibiotic therapy before a dental extraction for each patient on the basis of the patient's clinical conditions (healthy or affected by systemic pathology) and level of risk from infective complications. Immunocompromised patients, in particular, need an individualised approach in consultation with their treating medical specialist.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Antibiotic Prophylaxis; Bacterial Infections; Bias; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dry Socket; Humans; Molar, Third; Pain, Postoperative; Postoperative Complications; Tooth Extraction; Tooth, Impacted
PubMed: 33624847
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003811.pub3 -
Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine :... Jul 2015Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Since the previous parameter and review paper publication on oral appliances (OAs) in 2006, the relevant scientific literature has grown considerably, particularly in relation to clinical outcomes. The purpose of this new guideline is to replace the previous and update recommendations for the use of OAs in the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and snoring.
METHODS
The American Academy of Sleep Medicine (AASM) and American Academy of Dental Sleep Medicine (AADSM) commissioned a seven-member task force. A systematic review of the literature was performed and a modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) process was used to assess the quality of evidence. The task force developed recommendations and assigned strengths based on the quality of the evidence counterbalanced by an assessment of the relative benefit of the treatment versus the potential harms. The AASM and AADSM Board of Directors approved the final guideline recommendations.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that sleep physicians prescribe oral appliances, rather than no therapy, for adult patients who request treatment of primary snoring (without obstructive sleep apnea). (STANDARD) 2. When oral appliance therapy is prescribed by a sleep physician for an adult patient with obstructive sleep apnea, we suggest that a qualified dentist use a custom, titratable appliance over non-custom oral devices. (GUIDELINE) 3. We recommend that sleep physicians consider prescription of oral appliances, rather than no treatment, for adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea who are intolerant of CPAP therapy or prefer alternate therapy. (STANDARD) 4. We suggest that qualified dentists provide oversight—rather than no follow-up—of oral appliance therapy in adult patients with obstructive sleep apnea, to survey for dental-related side effects or occlusal changes and reduce their incidence. (GUIDELINE) 5. We suggest that sleep physicians conduct follow-up sleep testing to improve or confirm treatment efficacy, rather than conduct follow-up without sleep testing, for patients fitted with oral appliances. (GUIDELINE) 6. We suggest that sleep physicians and qualified dentists instruct adult patients treated with oral appliances for obstructive sleep apnea to return for periodic office visits—as opposed to no follow-up—with a qualified dentist and a sleep physician. (GUIDELINE).
CONCLUSIONS
The AASM and AADSM expect these guidelines to have a positive impact on professional behavior, patient outcomes, and, possibly, health care costs. This guideline reflects the state of knowledge at the time of publication and will require updates if new evidence warrants significant changes to the current recommendations.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Male; Mandibular Advancement; Middle Aged; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Polysomnography; Positive-Pressure Respiration; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Severity of Illness Index; Sleep Apnea, Obstructive; Snoring; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26094920
DOI: 10.5664/jcsm.4858 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2017Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Fixed prosthodontic treatment (crowns, fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), complete arch prostheses) involves the use of several different materials to replace missing tooth structure. Traditionally full metal or metal frameworks veneered with ceramic (metal-ceramic (MC)) have been used. In recent years several different metal-free systems have become available to clinicians and patients. In general, metal-free restorations should allow practitioners to better reproduce natural tooth colour, avoiding shortcomings of MC restorations. The comparative in service clinical performance of fixed prosthodontic treatments of different materials is unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of metal-free materials for prosthodontic restorations compared to metal-ceramic or other conventional all-metal materials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 3 May 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 4) in the Cochrane Library (searched 3 May 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 3 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 3 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials (searched 3 May 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which the clinical performance of metal-free fixed prosthodontic restorations was compared with metal-ceramic (MC) or other conventional restorations in adult patients requiring prosthodontic treatment. RCTs in which the clinical performance of different kinds of metal-free systems were compared among themselves were also considered.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Trial authors were contacted for missing information. Available results for the outcomes of interest of the systematic review of the studies included were tabulated as they could not be included in a formal meta-analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Nine trials involving a total of 448 participants were included. We judged two trials to be at unclear risk of bias and seven to be at high risk of bias. The majority of items of risk of bias were evaluated to be at unclear or high risk level in more than 50% of the included trials. Each trial except two was addressing a different type of intervention. All evidence was rated as being of very low quality due to problems with risk of bias and imprecision of results, the latter being due to very small sample sizes, low event rates, 95% confidence intervals including the possibility of benefit for both the test and control groups, or combinations of these problems. This means that we are very uncertain about all of the results presented in this review.One trial compared metal-free single crowns (full contour zirconia) to cast gold single crowns in 224 participants and found insufficient evidence of a difference in failure rate after one year, but after five years there was some evidence of a benefit for the gold crowns. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for crown complications at either time of assessment.One trial compared three-unit metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) to three-unit metal-ceramic FDPs in 37 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failure at one and six years, but some evidence of a benefit for the lithium disilicate group in terms of bridge complications at six years. One trial compared zirconia-ceramic FDPs to metal-ceramic FDPs in 34 participants but found insufficient evidence of a difference in bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free cantilevered FDPs to metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs in 21 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: bridge failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), bridge complications, or patients' aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to three years.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported screw retained single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) to metal-ceramic implant-supported screw-retained single crowns in 20 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for any primary outcome: crown failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group), crown complications, or satisfaction/aesthetic evaluation at any time of assessment up to two years.Two trials compared metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) to metal implant abutments both supporting single crowns in 50 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in abutment failure at one year.One trial compared metal-free implant-supported FDPs made of two different types of zirconia ceramic in 18 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference in failures at any time of assessment up to 10 years (i.e. no failures in either treatment group). There was some evidence of a benefit for the zirconia-toughened alumina group in terms of complications (chipping).One trial compared metal-free tooth-supported FDPs made with two different veneering techniques (pressed versus layered) in 40 participants. There was insufficient evidence of a difference for failures (i.e. no failures in either treatment group) or complications at any time of assessment up to three years.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of metal-free materials for fixed prosthodontic treatment over metal-ceramic or other type of standard restorations. The overall quality of existing evidence was very low, therefore great caution should be exercised when generalising the results of the included trials. Until more evidence becomes available clinicians should continue to base decisions on which material to use for fixed prosthodontic treatment on their own clinical experience, whilst taking into consideration the individual circumstances and preferences of their patients. There is urgent need of properly designed RCTs.
Topics: Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Zirconium
PubMed: 29261853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009606.pub2 -
Polymers Mar 2021Currently, the availability of a wide variety of universal adhesives makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the correct system for specific bonding situations to... (Review)
Review
Currently, the availability of a wide variety of universal adhesives makes it difficult for clinicians to choose the correct system for specific bonding situations to dentin substrate. This study aimed to determine whether there are any alternative techniques or additional strategies available to enhance the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin through a systematic review and meta-analysis. Two reviewers executed a literature search up to September 2020 in four electronic databases: PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, and EMBASE. Only in vitro studies that reported the dentin bond strength of universal adhesives using additional strategies were included. An analysis was carried out using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed according to the parameters of a previous systematic. A total of 5671 potentially relevant studies were identified. After title and abstract examination, 74 studies remained in systematic review. From these, a total of 61 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin was improved by the use of one of the following techniques: Previous application of matrix metalloproteinases (MMP) inhibitors ( < 0.001), prolonged application time ( = 0.007), scrubbing technique ( < 0.001), selective dentin etching ( < 0.001), non-atmospheric plasma ( = 0.01), ethanol-wet bonding ( < 0.01), prolonged blowing time ( = 0.02), multiple layer application ( = 0.005), prolonged curing time ( = 0.006), and hydrophobic layer coating ( < 0.001). On the other hand, the use of a shortened application time ( = 0.006), and dentin desensitizers ( = 0.01) impaired the bond strength of universal adhesives to dentin. Most of the analyses performed showed a high heterogenicity. The in vitro evidence suggests that the application of universal adhesives using some alternative techniques or additional strategies may be beneficial for improving their bonding performance to dentin. This research received no external funding. Considering that this systematic review was carried out only with in vitro studies, registration was not performed.
PubMed: 33799923
DOI: 10.3390/polym13050814