We have located links that may give you full text access.
Is Adhesive Bond Strength Similar in Primary and Permanent Teeth? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature on laboratory studies to determine whether the bond strength of adhesives to primary teeth is similar to that to permanent teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015160). A comprehensive literature search was conducted considering in vitro studies published up to June 2015 in the PubMed/MEDLINE database, with no limit on year of publication. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. From 422 eligible studies, 42 were fully analyzed. Thirty-seven studies were ultimately included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A global comparison was performed with a random-effects model at a significance level of p < 0.05, expressed by the difference of means between the groups. The mean bond strengths and standard deviations were tabulated and statistical analyses were conducted in RevMan 5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration).
RESULTS: There was a significant difference between groups, with permanent teeth presenting higher bond strength than primary teeth (p = 0.0005). When the enamel and dentin substrates were considered separately, dentin presented the same trend (p = 0.002), while for enamel there was no significant difference between the dentitions (p = 0.11). The majority of the studies had a high bias risk.
CONCLUSION: Adhesives have higher bond strengths when applied to permanent than to primary teeth. This difference was also valid when the comparison was made between permanent and primary dentin.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42014015160). A comprehensive literature search was conducted considering in vitro studies published up to June 2015 in the PubMed/MEDLINE database, with no limit on year of publication. Two reviewers independently selected papers, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. From 422 eligible studies, 42 were fully analyzed. Thirty-seven studies were ultimately included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. A global comparison was performed with a random-effects model at a significance level of p < 0.05, expressed by the difference of means between the groups. The mean bond strengths and standard deviations were tabulated and statistical analyses were conducted in RevMan 5.1 (The Cochrane Collaboration).
RESULTS: There was a significant difference between groups, with permanent teeth presenting higher bond strength than primary teeth (p = 0.0005). When the enamel and dentin substrates were considered separately, dentin presented the same trend (p = 0.002), while for enamel there was no significant difference between the dentitions (p = 0.11). The majority of the studies had a high bias risk.
CONCLUSION: Adhesives have higher bond strengths when applied to permanent than to primary teeth. This difference was also valid when the comparison was made between permanent and primary dentin.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Challenges in Septic Shock: From New Hemodynamics to Blood Purification Therapies.Journal of Personalized Medicine 2024 Februrary 4
Molecular Targets of Novel Therapeutics for Diabetic Kidney Disease: A New Era of Nephroprotection.International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2024 April 4
The 'Ten Commandments' for the 2023 European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of endocarditis.European Heart Journal 2024 April 18
A Guide to the Use of Vasopressors and Inotropes for Patients in Shock.Journal of Intensive Care Medicine 2024 April 14
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app