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.
Highlights
Dentine adhesives, which have undergone substantial changes over the last 20 years, are classified into two techniques: self-etch or etch-and-rinse.[1]
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 shorter application time and decreased postoperative sensitivity favors the choice for the self-etch,[3] but their thinner hybrid layer raises concern on whether the durability of the restoration is reduced or not.[4]
Summary
The shorter application time and decreased postoperative sensitivity favors the choice for the self-etch,[3] but their thinner hybrid layer raises concern on whether the durability of the restoration is reduced or not.[4] At the other hand, the thinner dentine hybrid layer theoretically provides less substrate to be degraded by chemical (both hydrolysis and enzymatic) and mechanical factors
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
