Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35621609›Full record

ReviewGels (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems to Calcium Silicate-Based Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.

Louis Hardan, Davide Mancino, Rim Bourgi, Alejandra Alvarado-Orozco, Laura Emma Rodríguez-Vilchis, Abigailt Flores-Ledesma, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, Monika Lukomska-Szymanska, Ammar Eid, Maya-Line Danhache and 3 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Gels (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Louis HardanDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0001-8577-2285
Davide MancinoDepartment of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, INSERM UMR_S 1121, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0001-7376-371X
Rim BourgiDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon.ORCID 0000-0002-8003-2664
Alejandra Alvarado-OrozcoCentro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Odontología, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Jesús Carranza esq. Paseo Tollocan, Col. Universidad, Toluca 50130, Mexico.
Laura Emma Rodríguez-VilchisCentro de Investigación y Estudios Avanzados en Odontología, Facultad de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, Jesús Carranza esq. Paseo Tollocan, Col. Universidad, Toluca 50130, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-3592-947X
Abigailt Flores-LedesmaFacultad de Estomatología, Benemerita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 31 Poniente #1304, Colonia Volcanes, Puebla 72410, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-8136-4820
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-SuárezDental Materials Laboratory, Academic Area of Dentistry, Autonomous University of Hidalgo State, Circuito Ex Hacienda La Concepción S/N, San Agustín Tlaxiaca 42160, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-2759-8984
Monika Lukomska-SzymanskaDepartment of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 251 Pomorska St., 92-213 Lodz, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-6110-4298
Ammar EidDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Damascus University, Damascus 0100, Syria.
Maya-Line DanhacheDepartment of Stomatology, Robert-Debré Hospital, 75019 Paris, France.
Maryline MinouxDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Youssef HaïkelDepartment of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, INSERM UMR_S 1121, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Naji KharoufDepartment of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, INSERM UMR_S 1121, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6768-138X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since the adhesion of resin composites to calcium silicate-based cement is considered challenging. Therefore, the best adhesion strategy should be indicated. This review aimed to assess the effect of different adhesive systems on the bond strength of resin composite to calcium silicate-based cement through a systematic review and meta-analysis. The subsequent PICOS framework used was: population, calcium silicate-based cement; intervention, use of self-etch adhesive systems; control, use of total-etch adhesive systems; outcome, bond strength; study design, in vitro studies. The literature search was conducted independently by two reviewers up to 18 February 2021. Electronic databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Science, SciELO, Scopus, and Embase) were searched for applicable articles. In vitro manuscripts studying the effect of adhesive systems on the bond strength of calcium silicate-based cement were considered. The meta-analyses were performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Bond strength comparisons were made considering the type of calcium silicate-based cement (Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA), Biodentine™, or TheraCal LC®). A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. A total of 7321 studies were retrieved in databases searched. After full-text evaluation, 37 eligible papers were assessed for qualitative analysis, leaving a total of 22 papers for the quantitative analysis. According to the meta-analysis, the bond strength values of resin composite materials to MTA and TheraCal LC® cement were favored when a total-etch adhesive system was used (p ≤ 0.02). On the other hand, the meta-analysis of the bond strength of resin-based materials to Biodentine™ calcium silicate-based cement was similar between both approaches (p = 0.12). The in vitro evidence suggests that the bond strength of resin-based materials to both MTA and TheraCal LC® cement was preferred by using the total-etch adhesive strategy. However, when bonding to Biodentine™, the use of self-etch or total-etch strategies displayed promising results. Given the lack of evidence related to the chemical interaction of self-etch adhesive materials with the bioceramics, if self-etch adhesives are used for bonding resin-based restorations to calcium silicate-based cement, a pretreatment with phosphoric acid could be recommended.

Indexed as

adhesive systemsbond strengthcalcium silicate-based cementcomposite

Identifiers

PMID35621609
PMCPMC9141246

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.