Sarkis-Onofre R, Skupien J A, Cenci M S, Moraes R R, Pereira-Cenci T
Oper Dent. 2014 Jan-Feb;39(1):E31-44. doi: 10.2341/13-070-LIT. Epub 2013 Aug 12.
Because there are several ways to cement glass-fiber posts (GFPs) into root canals, there is no consensus on the best strategy to achieve high bond strengths. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is difference in bond strength to dentin between regular and self-adhesive resin cements and to verify the influence of several variables on the retention of GFPs. This report followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. In vitro studies that investigated the bond strength of GFPs luted with self-adhesive and regular resin cements were selected. Searches were carried out in the PubMed and Scopus databases. No publication year or language limit was used, and the last search was done in October 2012. A global comparison was performed between self-adhesive and regular resin cements. Two subgroup analyses were performed: 1) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Etch-and-rinse adhesive and 2) Self-adhesive × Regular resin cement + Self-etch adhesive. The analyses were carried out using fixed-effect and random-effects models. The results showed heterogeneity in all comparisons, and higher bond strength to dentin was identified for self-adhesive cements. Although the articles included in this meta-analysis showed high heterogeneity and high risk of bias, the in vitro literature seems to suggest that use of self-adhesive resin cement could improve the retention of GFPs into root canals.
由于将玻璃纤维桩（GFP）粘结到根管中有多种方法，因此对于实现高粘结强度的最佳策略尚无共识。进行了一项系统评价，以确定常规树脂粘结剂和自粘结树脂粘结剂与牙本质的粘结强度是否存在差异，并验证几个变量对GFP固位的影响。本报告遵循系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目声明。选择了研究用自粘结和常规树脂粘结剂粘结GFP的粘结强度的体外研究。在PubMed和Scopus数据库中进行检索。未设置出版年份或语言限制，最后一次检索于2012年10月进行。对自粘结树脂粘结剂和常规树脂粘结剂进行了总体比较。进行了两项亚组分析：1）自粘结×常规树脂粘结剂+酸蚀冲洗粘结剂和2）自粘结×常规树脂粘结剂+自酸蚀粘结剂。使用固定效应模型和随机效应模型进行分析。结果显示所有比较中均存在异质性，且自粘结粘结剂与牙本质的粘结强度更高。尽管本Meta分析纳入的文章显示出高度异质性和高偏倚风险，但体外文献似乎表明使用自粘结树脂粘结剂可提高GFP在根管内的固位。
