Scholarlink

Objective <p>To evaluate the clinical performance of universal adhesives (UA) in different modes in direct dental resin composite restorations compared to control self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives.</p> Materials and methods <p>The study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A literature search was performed in five databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane) until August 2024. Only RCTs that compared retention, marginal staining, and postoperative sensitivity of different forms of application of UA with etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesives were included. The meta-analysis was performed using the Revman software (Cochrane Collaboration, UK), and this review was preregistered with the PROSPERO (CRD42022314408).</p> Results <p>A total of 15 RCTs were included, with a follow-up varied from 6 months to 4 years. In the global analysis, considering three outcomes, UA were statistically similar to control adhesives (etch-and-rinse and self-etch) regardless of the mode of application (ER, SE or EE), with a risk difference of -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02; <i>p</i> = 0.43; I<sup>2</sup> = 45%) for retention, -0.02 (-0.05, 0.01; <i>p</i> = 0.32; I<sup>2</sup> = 27%) for marginal discoloration and 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; <i>p</i> = 0.82; I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) for postoperative sensitivity.</p> Conclusion <p>Universal adhesives had similar clinical performance to conventional ER and SE adhesives.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Universal adhesives provide clinical performance comparable to conventional etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives, offering a simplified and effective option for adhesive procedures.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Comparative clinical performance of universal adhesives versus etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: a meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年6月25日

查看全文
  • Matheus Polesso Patias,
  • Paula Fernandes-e-Silva,
  • Neftali Lenin Villareal Carreño,
  • Rafael Guerra Lund,
  • Evandro Piva,
  • Adriana Fernandes da Silva,
  • Wellington Luiz De Oliveira Da Rosa

摘要

Objective

To evaluate the clinical performance of universal adhesives (UA) in different modes in direct dental resin composite restorations compared to control self-etch and etch-and-rinse adhesives.

Materials and methods

The study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). A literature search was performed in five databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane) until August 2024. Only RCTs that compared retention, marginal staining, and postoperative sensitivity of different forms of application of UA with etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesives were included. The meta-analysis was performed using the Revman software (Cochrane Collaboration, UK), and this review was preregistered with the PROSPERO (CRD42022314408).

Results

A total of 15 RCTs were included, with a follow-up varied from 6 months to 4 years. In the global analysis, considering three outcomes, UA were statistically similar to control adhesives (etch-and-rinse and self-etch) regardless of the mode of application (ER, SE or EE), with a risk difference of -0.01 (-0.04, 0.02; p = 0.43; I2 = 45%) for retention, -0.02 (-0.05, 0.01; p = 0.32; I2 = 27%) for marginal discoloration and 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; p = 0.82; I2 = 0%) for postoperative sensitivity.

Conclusion

Universal adhesives had similar clinical performance to conventional ER and SE adhesives.

Clinical relevance

Universal adhesives provide clinical performance comparable to conventional etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives, offering a simplified and effective option for adhesive procedures.