ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Effect of chlorhexidine pretreatment on clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Activity of Dentin Disinfection Protocols Against MRSA andJournal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of problem: The long-term stability of resin-dentin adhesion remains a major concern in restorative dentistry. Hydrolytic and enzymatic degradation of the hybrid layer contributes to the deterioration of resin-bonded restorations. Inhibition of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) by chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) has been proposed to preserve the hybrid layer and improve adhesive durability. Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effect of dentin pretreatment with CHX on the clinical performance and longevity of resin-based restorations compared with no CHX application. Material and methods: Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, electronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library up to September 2025. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials assessing CHX pretreatment before adhesive application were included. Primary outcomes were restoration retention, postoperative sensitivity, and secondary caries after ≥6 months of follow-up. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using risk differences (RDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: Eleven clinical trials (6 months-4 years of follow-up) met the inclusion criteria. CHX concentrations ranged from 0.2% to 2% with application times of 15-30 s. Most studies used etch-and-rinse adhesives. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences between CHX and control groups for restoration retention (RD = 0.01; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.04; Conclusions: Although CHX demonstrates MMPs inhibition Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251165239.
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.