Effect of adhesive strategy of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

Krisha Doshi; M S Nivedhitha; Pradeep Solete; Delphine Pricilla Antony S; Arthi Balasubramaniam; Benoy Jacob; Riluwan Siddique

doi:10.1038/s41405-022-00124-6

Effect of adhesive strategy of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions - an updated systematic review and meta-analysis

BDJ Open. 2023 Feb 13;9(1):6. doi: 10.1038/s41405-022-00124-6.

Authors

Krisha Doshi¹, M S Nivedhitha¹, Pradeep Solete¹, Delphine Pricilla Antony S¹, Arthi Balasubramaniam², Benoy Jacob¹, Riluwan Siddique³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical And Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
² Department of Public Health Dentistry, Saveetha Dental College, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
³ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical And Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. [email protected].

Abstract

Objective: To determine the effect of adhesive strategy (total etch or self-etch) of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions.

Data source: A search was made in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, Web Of Science, Open Gray, Clinical Registries.

Data selection: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials, studies on non-carious cervical lesions restored using Universal Adhesives, and studies in which universal adhesives have been used in total etch and self -etch strategies were included in this systematic review.

Data extraction: A total of 17 articles were included in the systematic review and 13 in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted to assess the clinical performance of NCCLs in terms of retention, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, secondary caries and post-operative sensitivity at 18, 24, 36 month follow-up using USPHS as well as FDI criteria, separately.

Data synthesis: Overall there was no significant difference between total etch and self etch adhesive strategies for any of the five outcome measures using either the FDI or the USPHS criteria. p > 0.05, 95% CI, I² value of 0%. A strongly suspected publication bias in the retention domain was seen at 18 month follow up under FDI criteria.

Conclusion: Most universal adhesives show acceptable clinical performance. There is no significant effect of the adhesive strategy of universal adhesives on their clinical performance according to the results of our meta-analysis.