• Soares, N.
• Junior, R.
• Assis, P.
• Silva, C.
• Nascimento, A.
• Anníbal, H.
• Júnior, S.

Abstract

<jats:title>SUMMARY</jats:title><jats:sec><jats:title>Objective:</jats:title><jats:p>To evaluate the adhesion of universal adhesive systems to the dentin of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) by comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies through a systematic review and meta-analysis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Methods:</jats:title><jats:p>Systematic electronic searches were performed by two independent reviewers into the following databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library until December of 2021. Only randomized clinical trials were selected, comparing etch-and-rinse and self-etch strategies and using universal adhesive systems in NCCLs. This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered into PROSPERO.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results:</jats:title><jats:p>After the removal of duplicates, 170 articles were identified. In an initial screening of titles and abstracts, 146 records did not satisfy the inclusion criteria and were, therefore, excluded. Twenty-four studies were eligible for evaluation of the full text, and four were excluded after this step. Finally, 20 randomized clinical trials were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion:</jats:title><jats:p>This systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that applying universal adhesive systems in the etch-and-rinse strategy could lead to better medium-term (&amp;gt;12 to 36 months) retention of NCCL restorations than the self-etch strategy, as well as resulting in lower percentages of marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, and secondary caries. However, the use of a self-etching strategy can lead to lower postoperative sensitivity.</jats:p></jats:sec>

Topics

• inclusion
• etching
• size-exclusion chromatography