Journal Article Meta-Analysis Comparative Study Systematic Review Review Epublish
PubMed: 40560221 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-025-06427-w
Comparative clinical performance of universal adhesives versus etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives: a meta-analysis.
Clin Oral Investig 29(7):352
Authors: Matheus Polesso Patias, Paula Fernandes-E-Silva, Neftali Lenin Villareal CarreƱo, Rafael Guerra Lund, Evandro Piva, Adriana Fernandes da Silva, Wellington Luiz De Oliveira Da Rosa
Affiliations
- Graduated Student in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
- Graduate Program in Materials Science and Engineering, Technology Development Center, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil.
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua GonƧalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil.
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Rua GonƧalves Chaves, 457, Room 503, Pelotas, 96015-560, RS, Brazil.
Abstract
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; pā=ā0.43; I 2ā=ā45%) for retention, -0.02 (-0.05, 0.01; pā=ā0.32; I 2ā=ā27%) for marginal discoloration and 0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; pā=ā0.82; I 2ā=ā0%) 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.
MeSH
Adhesives, Retention, Psychology