Clinical Relevance

Conventional multistep resin cements presented higher adhesive performance to dentin than simplified self-adhesive cements, which is an important criterion for indirect restoration prognosis.

SUMMARY

This study aimed to conduct a systematic review of the literature on laboratory studies assessing bonding performance to dentin of conventional and self-adhesive resin cements, in cementing indirect restorations. This review was reported according to the PRISMA Statement. Of a total of 518 studies, 36 were screened full text and reviewed according to exclusion criteria. Nineteen papers were included in the systematic review and meta-analyses, according to the following inclusion criteria: studies that evaluated the bond strength to dentin of indirect restorations cemented with dual conventional or self-adhesive resin cements and those that presented bond strength data in MPa as an outcome. Statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan 5.1. Comparisons were performed with random effects models at 5% significance level. A global analysis comparing conventional and self-adhesive cements and three subgroup analyses comparing immediate and long-term results were performed. Global analysis showed a difference between groups, with conventional resin cements presenting higher bond strength results than self-adhesive resin cements, in immediate and long-term time periods (both p=0.03). Immediate and long-term bond strength results were different for self-adhesive cements, favoring immediate bond strength (p=0.03), but immediate and long-term bond strength results for conventional resin cements were not different (p=0.06). Medium or high risk of bias was found in all studies. Conventional multistep resin cements showed superior overall adhesive performance compared with simplified self-adhesive resin cements when used to cement indirect restorations to dentin.

This content is only available as a PDF.
You do not currently have access to this content.