Comparison of the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

  • Heber Arbildo-Vega Escuela de Estomatología, Universidad Señor de Sipán. Chiclayo, Perú. | Escuela de Odontología, Universidad Particular de Chiclayo. Chiclayo, Perú. | Centro de Salud Odontológico San Mateo. Trujillo, Perú.
  • César Lamas-Lara Escuela de Odontología, Universidad Peruana Los Andes, Lima, Perú
  • Fredy Cruzado-Oliva Escuela de Odontología, Universidad Particular de Chiclayo. Chiclayo, Perú.
  • Carmen Rosas-Prado Escuela de Estomatología, Universidad Señor de Sipán. Chiclayo, Perú.
  • Alberto Gómez-Fuertes Escuela de Estomatología, Universidad Señor de Sipán. Chiclayo, Perú.
  • Hernán Vásquez-Rodrigo Facultad de Odontología, Universidad San Martín de Porres. Lima, Perú.

Abstract

Objective: To compare, through a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives (UA) in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).  Material and Method: A search of the literature was carried out up to January 2018, in the biomedical databases: Pubmed, Embase, Scielo, Science Direct, SIGLE, LILACS, BBO, Google Scholar and the Central Register of Cochrane Clinical Trials. The selection criteria of the studies were as: randomized clinical trials, with a maximum age of 5 years and which report the clinical effects (marginal adaptation, discoloration or marginal staining, presence of secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, retention and fractures) of the UA in the treatment of NCCLs. The risk of study bias was analyzed through the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews of interventions.  Results: The search strategy resulted in eight articles that reported no difference in marginal adaptation, discoloration or marginal staining, presence of secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity among the adhesive strategies of the UA; however they reported a difference between the retention and the presence of fractures, with the conventional adhesive strategy resulting in a better clinical effect.  Conclusion: The reviewed literature suggests that the conventional adhesive strategy of UAs results in greater retention and absence of fractures in the treatment of NCCLs.

References

1. Szesz A, Parreiras S, Reis A, Loguercio A. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:1–11.
2. Rodríguez H, Hernández Y, Gonzales C. Lesiones cervicales no cariosas en pacientes del área de salud "Eléctrico", municipio Arroyo Naranjo. Rev Cub Estomatol. 2016;53(4):188–97.
3. Igarashi Y, Yoshida S, Kanazawa E. The prevalence and morphological types of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL) in a contemporary sample of people. Odontology. 2017;105(4):443–52.
4. Lai ZY, Zhi QH, Zhou Y, Lin HC. Prevalence of non-carious cervical lesions and associated risk indicators in middle-aged and elderly populations in Southern China. Chin J Dent Res. 2015;18(1):41–50.
5. 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):1089–103.
6. Santos MJ, Ari N, Steele S, Costella J, Banting D. Retention of tooth-colored restorations in non-carious cervical lesions--a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(5):1369–81.
7. Heintze SD, Rousson V, Hickel R. Clinical effectiveness of direct anterior restorations--a meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015;31(5):481–95.
8. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez I, Lisboa AH, Higashi C, Queiroz VA, Rego RO, Reis A. Influence of Isolation Method of the Operative Field on Gingival Damage, Patients' Preference, and Restoration Retention in Noncarious Cervical Lesions. Oper Dent. 2015;40(6):582–93.
9. Rosa WL, Piva E, Silva AF. Bond strength of universal adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2015;43(7):765–76.
10. de Goes MF, Shinohara MS, Freitas MS. Performance of a new one-step multi-mode adhesive on etched vs non-etched enamel on bond strength and interfacial morphology. J Adhes Dent. 2014;16(3):243–50.
11. Muñoz MA, Sezinando A, Luque-Martinez I, Szesz AL, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Bombarda NH, Perdigão J. Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the bonding efficacy of three universal adhesives. J Dent. 2014;42(5):595–602.
12. Wagner A, Wendler M, Petschelt A, Belli R, Lohbauer U. Bonding performance of universal adhesives in different etching modes. J Dent. 2014;42(7):800–7.
13. Urrútia G, Bonfill X. [PRISMA declaration: a proposal to improve the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses]. Med Clin . 2010;135(11):507–11.
14. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. 5st Ed. web site: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
15. Mena-Serrano A, Kose C, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(1):55–69.
16. Perdigão J, Kose C, Mena-Serrano AP, De Paula EA, Tay LY, Reis A, Loguercio AD. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39(2):113–27.
17. de Carvalho LD, Gondo R, Lopes GC. One-year Clinical Evaluation of Resin Composite Restorations of Noncarious Cervical Lesions in Smokers. J Adhes Dent. 2015;17(5):405–11.
18. Loguercio AD, de Paula EA, Hass V, Luque-Martinez I, Reis A, Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized double-blind clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43(9):1083–92.
19. Lawson NC, Robles A, Fu CC, Lin CP, Sawlani K, Burgess JO. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43(10):1229–34.
20. Lopes LS, Calazans FS, Hidalgo R, Buitrago LL, Gutierrez F, Reis A, Loguercio AD, Barceleiro MO. Six-month Follow-up of Cervical Composite Restorations Placed With a New Universal Adhesive System: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):465–80.
21. Loguercio AD, Luque-Martinez IV, Fuentes S, Reis A, Muñoz MA. Effect of dentin roughness on the adhesive performance in non-carious cervical lesions: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2018;69:60–9.
22. de Albuquerque EG, Warol F, Calazans FS, Poubel LA, Marins SS, Matos T, Hanzen T, Barceleiro MO, Dourado A. A New Universal Simplified Adhesive: 6-Month Randomized multi-center clinical trial. Rev Bras Odontol. 2017;74(4):251–60.
23. Moosavi H, Kimyai S, Forghani M, Khodadadi R. The clinical effectiveness of various adhesive systems: an 18-month evaluation. Oper Dent. 2013;38(2):134–41.
24. Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosà M, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, Pashley DH, Tay F, Breschi L. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent. 2014;42(5):603–12.
25. Can Say E, Özel E, Yurdagüven H, Soyman M. Three-year clinical evaluation of a two-step self-etch adhesive with or without selective enamel etching in non-carious cervical sclerotic lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(5):1427–33.
Published
2018-06-05
How to Cite
ARBILDO-VEGA, Heber et al. Comparison of the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions. Systematic review and meta-analysis.. Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 5, p. 210-222, june 2018. ISSN 0719-2479. Available at: <https://joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2018.049>. Date accessed: 24 july 2021. doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2018.049.
Section
Reviews

Keywords

universal adhesives; non-carious cervical lesion; review; meta-analysis.