Comparison of Self-Etching Adhesives and Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives on the Failure Rate of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Basílio Rodrigues Vieira; Eugênia Lívia de Andrade Dantas; Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti; Bianca Marques Santiago; Frederico Barbosa de Sousa

doi:10.1055/s-0041-1736332

European Journal of Dentistry, Table of Contents

CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2022; 16(02): 258-265
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736332

Review Article

Comparison of Self-Etching Adhesives and Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives on the Failure Rate of Posterior Composite Resin Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Basílio Rodrigues Vieira

¹Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

,

Eugênia Lívia de Andrade Dantas

¹Graduate Program in Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

,

Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti

²Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

,

Bianca Marques Santiago

²Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

,

Frederico Barbosa de Sousa

³Department of Morphology, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Paraíba, João Pessoa, Paraiba, Brazil

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review with meta-analysis on the comparison of self-etching adhesives and etch-and-rinse adhesives with respect to the failure rate of posterior composite resin restorations. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017078015), following PRISMA recommendations and PICO search strategy. Literature search was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science, LILACS, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library through July 2021. Six studies from five randomized clinical trials were included in the qualitative synthesis. The funnel plot detected important bias (all studies out of the funnel area). The meta-analysis showed a positive summary Cohen H effect size of 0.406 (95% CI: 0.100; 0.713, p = 0.009), favoring etch-and-rinse adhesives. The total number of failures (including restorations that required replacement and those that did not require replacement) were attributed to either marginal adaptation (five studies) or marginal staining (one study). A very low certainty of the evidence was obtained through GRADE analysis. In conclusion, current available evidence indicates that etch-and rinse adhesives performed better (with a low effect size) than self-etching adhesives in terms of failure rates in posterior composite restorations.

Keywords

dentine adhesives - resin composite - dental restoration - failures - clinical studies - meta-analysis

Full Text

References

References
1 Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G, Tenore G, Romeo U, Migliau G. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017; 8 (01) 1-17
2 Häfer M, Schneider H, Rupf S. et al. Experimental and clinical evaluation of a self-etching and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system. J Adhes Dent 2013; 15 (03) 275-286
3 Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres AP. et al. Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (01) 3-10
4 Tay FR, King NM, Chan KM, Pashley DH. How can nanoleakage occur in self-etching adhesive systems that demineralize and infiltrate simultaneously?. J Adhes Dent 2002; 4 (04) 255-269
5 Correa MB, Peres MA, Peres KG, Horta BL, Barros AD, Demarco FF. Amalgam or composite resin? Factors influencing the choice of restorative material. J Dent 2012; 40 (09) 703-710
6 Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31 (Suppl. 01) e56
7 Kubo S, Kawasaki A, Hayashi Y. Factors associated with the longevity of resin composite restorations. Dent Mater J 2011; 30 (03) 374-383
8 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Four-year clinical evaluation of Class II nano-hybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. J Dent 2011; 39 (01) 16-25
9 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19 (06) 1371-1379
10 Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ. et al. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol 2016; 31 (04) 337-350
11 Szklo M, Nieto J. Epidemiology: Beyond the Basic. 4th ed.. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Publishers; 2019
12 Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71
13 Maia LC, Antonio AG. Systematic reviews in dental research. A guideline. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 37 (02) 117-124
14 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: d5928
15 Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998
16 Sánchez-Meca J, Marín-Martínez F, Chacón-Moscoso S. Effect-size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2003; 8 (04) 448-467
17 Boslaught S. Statistics in a Nutshell—A Desktop Quick Reference. O'Reilly; 2nd ed.;. 2011
18 Neyeloff JL, Fuchs SC, Moreira LB. Meta-analyses and Forest plots using a Microsoft excel spreadsheet: step-by-step guide focusing on descriptive data analysis. BMC Res Notes 2012; 5 (01) 52
19 Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003; 327 (7414): 557-560
20 Hedges LV, Pigott TD. The power of statistical tests in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 2001; 6 (03) 203-217
21 Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54 (10) 1046-1055
22 Ryan R, Hill S. How to GRADE the quality of the evidence. Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group. Version 3.0 December 2016. Accessed on July 1, 2021 at: http://cccrg.cochrane.org/author-resources
23 Perdigão J, Dutra-Corrêa M, Anauate-Netto C. et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of self-etching adhesives in posterior restorations. J Adhes Dent 2009; 11 (02) 149-159
24 van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. Three-year randomized clinical study of a one-step universal adhesive and a two-step self-etch adhesive in class II composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2017; 19 (04) 287-294
25 van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U. Durability of a low shrinkage TEGDMA/HEMA-free resin composite system in Class II restorations. A 6-year follow up. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (08) 944-953
26 Çakır NN, Demirbuga S. The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up. Clin Oral Investig 2019; 23 (06) 2767-2776
27 Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Van Landuyt K, Yoshida Y, Peumans M. From Buonocore's pioneering acid-etch technique to self-adhering restoratives. a status perspective of rapidly advancing dental adhesive technology. J Adhes Dent 2020; 22 (01) 7-34
28 De Munck J, Mine A, Poitevin A. et al. Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res 2012; 91 (04) 351-357
29 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) 1089-1103