-
Cells Jan 2023Diverse types of dental adhesives exhibit different cytotoxic outcomes on cells in vitro. Currently, no standard adhesive application technique has so far been decisive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Diverse types of dental adhesives exhibit different cytotoxic outcomes on cells in vitro. Currently, no standard adhesive application technique has so far been decisive for clinicians for better durability of resin-dentin bonds of adhesive systems. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the bonding performance of adhesive systems to dentin by using different application modalities. The systematic research strategy was conducted by two reviewers among multiple databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scielo. In vitro studies reporting the effects of additional steps for the application of adhesive systems on the bond strength to dentin were selected. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 using the random effects model. The methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed according to the parameters of a previous systematic review. The electronic research through different databases generated a total of 8318 references. After the examination of titles and abstracts, a total of 106 potentially relevant studies accessed the full-text evaluation phase. After full-text examination, 78 publications were included for the qualitative analysis, and 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding the etch-and-rinse adhesive systems, the application modalities that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer ( = 0.005), an extended application time ( < 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current ( < 0.001), a double-layer application ( = 0.05), the agitation technique ( = 0.02), and the active application of the adhesive ( < 0.001). For self-etch adhesive systems, the techniques that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer ( < 0.001), an extended application time ( = 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current ( < 0.001), a double-layer application ( < 0.001), the agitation technique ( = 0.01), and the active application of the adhesive ( < 0.001). The in vitro evidence suggests that the application of adhesive systems using alternative techniques or additional strategies may be beneficial for improving their bond strength to dentin. The application modalities that favored the overall bond strength to dentin were an extended application time, a double-layer application, an application assisted by an electric current, the active application of the adhesive, and the application of a hydrophobic resin layer. Worth mentioning is that some techniques are intended to increase the degree of the conversion of the materials, and therefore, improvements in the biocompatibility of the materials can be expected.
Topics: Adhesives; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Materials Testing; Resin Cements
PubMed: 36611983
DOI: 10.3390/cells12010190 -
Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) Feb 2021For long-term successful use of ceramic materials in dental procedures, it is necessary to ensure reliable bonding of restorations to dental substrates. This can be...
For long-term successful use of ceramic materials in dental procedures, it is necessary to ensure reliable bonding of restorations to dental substrates. This can be achieved by the application of a proper luting cement and through additional surface conditioning. The present systematic review summarizes the most up-to-date evidence on the use of different surface modification methods to enhance the bond strength of dental ceramics to the hard tissues of the teeth. The authors of the review searched the Web of Science, Scopus, and MEDLINE databases to identify relevant articles published between 1 January 2010 and 1 January 2020. A total of 4892 records were identified, and after screening, the full text of 159 articles was evaluated, which finally resulted in the inclusion of 19 studies. The available reports were found to be heterogeneous in terms of materials and methodology, and therefore, only within-studies comparison was performed instead of comparison between studies. A statistically significant difference in the bond strength between the samples treated with different methods of surface conditioning, or between conditioned and nonconditioned samples, was revealed by most of the studies. Predominantly, the studies showed that a combination of mechanical and chemical methods was the most effective way of enhancing bond strength. Artificial aging and luting cement were also identified as the factors significantly influencing bond strength.
Topics: Dental Cements; Humans; Materials Testing; Surface Properties; Tensile Strength
PubMed: 33668944
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26051223 -
Dentistry Journal May 2024To compare the clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations (IRR) vs. composite resin (CR) in dental restorations. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
To compare the clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations (IRR) vs. composite resin (CR) in dental restorations.
METHODS
A systematic search was carried out from articles published until January 2024, in the biomedical databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials were included, with a follow-up time greater than or equal to 1 year, without time and language limits and which reported the clinical effect of IRR compared to CR in dental restorations. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation of the results.
RESULTS
The search yielded a total of 1109 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 29 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant difference when comparing the dental restorations with IRRs or CRs.
CONCLUSION
The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences between the IRRs and CRs in dental restorations.
PubMed: 38920859
DOI: 10.3390/dj12060158 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Nov 2021: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of... (Review)
Review
: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. : A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. : Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). : Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.
PubMed: 34772221
DOI: 10.3390/ma14216694 -
BioMed Research International 2022The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The main cause of unsuccess in endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is due to bacterial recontamination. The placement of an intraorifice barrier (IOB) has been proposed for preventing this event in cases that the restoration is in an inadequate condition, enhancing the possibilities for predictable long-term success in endodontic therapy. . To evaluate through a systematic review and meta-analysis if it would be necessary to place an IOB in ETT. . The present review is in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 Statement and is registered in the Open Science Framework. Two blinded reviewers carried out a comprehensive search in four databases up to July 10, 2021: MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science. Eligible studies were the ones which evaluated the use of an IOB in ETT in reducing microleakage with any material of choice and with any methods employed. Only in vitro studies published in English were included. . A total of thirty in vitro studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and seven of those were included in the quantitative analyses evaluating the following materials: bioceramic cement, glass-ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-based composite (RBC). Most of the included studies placed an IOB at a 3 mm depth. Reduction in microleakage was observed when an IOB was placed, regardless of the material employed ( ≤ 0.01). Among the materials, GIC and RBC performed similarly ( > 0.05), with the bioceramic subgroup being statistically superior to the GIC subgroup ( ≤ 0.05). . Although well-designed randomized clinical trials are required, the placement of an intraorifice barrier can significantly reduce microleakage in endodontically treated teeth, and the use of bioceramics as IOB seems to be the best available material for this purpose.
Topics: Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Tooth, Nonvital
PubMed: 35097115
DOI: 10.1155/2022/2789073 -
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2022To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included.
SOURCES
A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p < 0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p = 0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p = 0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p = 0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p = 0.33].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 36038075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104272 -
Journal of Conservative Dentistry : JCD 2022Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage.... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Endodontic success depends on complete sealing of the root canal orifice to prevent re-infection and re-Contamination of the treated teeth through microleakage. Intra-orifice barrier material provides a seal against micro-organisms, its by-products thus, preventing microleakage and subsequent endodontic failure. Several studies have been done to evaluate microleakage after placing various materials as IOB, but still there is no standardization for the same. Thus, this systematic review was conducted to evaluate the microleakage associated with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), composite, and glass ionomer cement (GIC) when used as IOB material.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Protocol was formulated in accordance with PRISMA checklist 2020 and registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021226225). Electronic search from databases such as Medline/PubMed, Scopus, EBSCOhost, Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were performed from the year 2000-2020. and studies evaluating coronal microleakage after placing IOB material using methylene blue dye penetration test under a stereomicroscope were included. A total of 5 studies were included in the systematic review. After assessing the risk of bias using customized criteria referred from JBI critical appraisal tool, characteristics of the included studies, reason for exclusion of the studies, and data extraction sheet were prepared.
RESULTS
All studies included in this systematic review reported that placement of an IOB material significantly reduces microleakage as compared to control groups. MTA used as an IOB showed less microleakage than composite and GIC.
CONCLUSION
MTA as IOB material demonstrated the least microleakage studies. However, in this systematic review, only studies were included. Thus, more studies in the form of randomized control trials are required to give a conclusive and definitive result.
PubMed: 36591578
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_377_22 -
BioMed Research International 2022This systematic review and network meta-analysis is aimed at investigating the effect of common surface treatments on the long-term repair bond strength of aged resin... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Long-Term Repair Bond Strength of Aged Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
This systematic review and network meta-analysis is aimed at investigating the effect of common surface treatments on the long-term repair bond strength of aged resin composite restorations and to rank and compare these surface treatments. studies evaluating the methacrylate-based resin composites subjected to rigorous aging protocols before and after being repaired with a new composite were included. A frequentist network meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model. scores were used to rank the efficacy of the surface treatments. Also, the global and node-split inconsistencies were evaluated. Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched until July 07, 2022. Twenty-six studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that the application of silane and a total-etch (shear MD 32.35 MPa, 95% CI: 18.25 to 46.40, score 0.95; tensile MD 33.25 MPa, 95% CI: 25.07 to 41.44; score 0.77) or a self-etch (shear MD 38.87 MPa, 95% CI: 21.60 to 56.14, score 0.99; tensile MD 32.52 MPa, 95% CI: 23.74 to 41.29; score 0.73) adhesion protocol subsequent to the roughening with diamond bur produced the highest (micro)tensile and (micro)shear bond strengths compared to diamond bur alone as the control group. There was no difference between self- and total-etch adhesive protocols. Mechanical surface treatments yielded greater bond strength when used alongside the chemical adhesive agents. Further, it is possible to achieve acceptable repair bond strength using common dental clinic equipment. Therefore, clinicians could consider repairing old resin composites rather than replacing them.
Topics: Humans; Aged; Methacrylates; Surface Properties; Network Meta-Analysis; Resin Cements; Materials Testing; Composite Resins; Adhesives; Shear Strength; Diamond; Dental Bonding; Dental Stress Analysis
PubMed: 37964860
DOI: 10.1155/2022/7708643 -
International Journal of Molecular... Apr 2021Some authors have been proposing the use of cavity disinfectants in order to reduce, or even eliminate, the effect of the microorganisms present in a dental cavity... (Review)
Review
Some authors have been proposing the use of cavity disinfectants in order to reduce, or even eliminate, the effect of the microorganisms present in a dental cavity before a restoration is placed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different cavity disinfectants on bond strength and clinical success of composite and glass ionomer restorations on primary teeth. The research was conducted using Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science for articles published up to February 2021. The search was performed according to the PICO strategy. The evaluation of the methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed using the CONSORT checklist for reporting in vitro studies on dental materials. Sixteen in vitro studies and one in situ study fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Chlorhexidine was the most studied cavity disinfectant, and its use does not compromise dentin bonding. Sodium hypochlorite is a promising alternative, but more research on its use is required to clearly state that it can safely be used as a cavity disinfectant for primary teeth. Although other disinfectants were studied, there is a low-level evidence attesting their effects on adhesion, therefore their use should be avoided.
Topics: Adhesiveness; Dental Cavity Preparation; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Disinfectants; Disinfection; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 33922376
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22094398 -
Dental Research Journal 2021The success of the sandwich technique depends on the bond strength of composite to glass-ionomer cement (GIC)/resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC). Currently used... (Review)
Review
Effect of total-etch and self-etch adhesives on the bond strength of composite to glass-ionomer cement/resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in the sandwich technique - A systematic review.
The success of the sandwich technique depends on the bond strength of composite to glass-ionomer cement (GIC)/resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC). Currently used adhesives employ the total-etch and the self-etch techniques. The total-etch system is technique sensitive, whereas the self-etch system is popular for its ease of use. The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effect of total-etch and self-etch adhesives (SEAs) on the bond strength of composite to GIC/(RMGIC) in the sandwich technique. A literature search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Ebscohost, and Scopus) limiting the year of publications from January 1, 2000, to September 30, 2018, to identify the relevant studies. All the cross-references of the selected studies were also screened. studies on extracted human teeth were selected. A total of 10 articles were included in this review. A conclusion was drawn that SEAs when used in the sandwich technique resulted in greater bond strength in comparison to total-etch adhesives. Moreover, increased bond strength was achieved when the primer was employed on unset GIC as compared to set GIC. Furthermore, the application of SEAs over uncured RMGIC (co-curing technique) resulted in better bond strengths as compared to their application over cured RMGIC.
PubMed: 34760063
DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.326645