SynthesisSystematic reviews2025
HEMA-free versus HEMA-containing adhesive systems: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Effect of Etching Protocols on the Bonding Performance of a HEMA-Free Two-Step Universal Adhesive to Caries-Affected Dentin.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of microtensile bond strength and failure type analysis of two different types of universal dental adhesives. In vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Etching Protocols on the Bonding Stability of Universal Adhesives to Dentin.Polymers · 2026Article
- Does attachment removal damage enamel? Influence of adhesive, resin, and bur on surface integrity.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic ceramic and metal brackets with zirconia: effects of adhesive systems and storage conditions.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Article
- Does simplification signify compromise? Evaluation of different universal adhesives on shear bond strength:Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHydrophilic monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free adhesive systems are gaining increasing popularity nowadays. Although the addition of HEMA to dental adhesives improves dentin wettability and resin diffusion into demineralized collagen fibrils, HEMA's high hydrophilicity can lead to hydrolytic degradation of the adhesive interface. Thus, HEMA-free adhesive systems have been developed. Unfortunately, the lack of HEMA in the adhesive composition may lead to a separation phase between hydrophobic and hydrophilic components. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical performance of HEMA-free adhesive systems and compare them with HEMA-containing ones.
methodsAn electronic search of The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) was conducted. Eligibility criteria were reporting empirical data from clinical studies published between 2013 and 2023 about the clinical performance of HEMA-free adhesive systems for direct resin composite restorations. Studies with at least 2-year clinical follow-up done in permanent dentition in any form of cavities were selected. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool criteria.
resultsThe database search returned 147 studies; a total of 7 studies were included in this review; the majority of studies reported no significant difference between the two types of adhesives for the parameter of retention.
conclusionsHEMA-free adhesive systems exhibited good clinical performance with regard to retention. There was some concern about their influence on marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration due to the conflicted results reported by the included trials. Thus, the results need to be confirmed with long-term evaluations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023448952.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.