OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the literature on the bond strength of self-etching (SE) adhesives containing 10-MDP or other acidic functional monomers, comparing the bonding performance of both compositions.

METHODS

This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020175715) and it followed the PRISMA Statement. The literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, SciELO, Scopus, LILACS, IBECS, and BBO from the starting coverage date through 30 June 2021. Study eligibility criteria consisted of in vitro studies that evaluated the bond strength (microtensile, microshear, tensile or shear testing) to sound dentin/enamel of a minimum of two distinct SE systems, with at least one material containing 10-MDP and one other being comprised of a distinct acidic composition. Statistical analyses were carried out with RevMan 5.3.5 and using random-effects models with the significance level at p < 0.05. Also, Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using MetaInsight V3 tool.

RESULTS

From 740 relevant studies evaluated in full-text analysis, 210 were incorporated to the systematic review and 206 in meta-analysis. The majority of studies was classified as having medium risk of bias (56.7%), followed by low (35.2%) and high (8.1%) risk of bias. Data from a total of 64 adhesive systems were collected, which favored the 10-MDP-based group at both dentin (overall effect: 6.98; 95% CI: 5.61, 8.36; p < 0.00001) and enamel (overall effect: 2.79; 95% CI: 1.62, 3.96; p < 0.00001) substrates. Microtensile testing was more frequently used (73.4%) in the included studies. Adhesives based on 10-MDP showed greater bonding performance than adhesives comprised of monomers such as PENTA, 6-MHP, 4-META, 4-MET, pyrophosphate esters, mixed composition or monomers derived from sulfonic acid (p ≤ 0.01); whereas similar bond strength values were verified between 10-MDP-based materials and those containing PEM-F, acrylamide phosphates, 4-AET, MAC-10, or monomers derived from polyacrylic and phosphonic acids (p ≥ 0.05). Adhesives based on GPDM were the only ones that resulted in greater bonding potential than the 10-MDP-based group (p = 0.03). Dental bonds in dentin were favored with the application of 2-step 10-MDP-based adhesives; whereas in enamel the dental bonds were favored for both 2-steps versions of adhesives, regardless of the presence of 10-MDP. Indirect evidence from NMA revealed that 1-step 10-MDP-free and universal 10-MDP-free adhesives seemed to perform worst in dentin and enamel, respectively.

SIGNIFICANCE

Adhesives containing 10-MDP showed higher bonding performance than materials formulated with other acidic ingredients, although this result relied on the type of mechanical testing, type of the substrate, acidic composition of the adhesive, and the application category of the SE system. This review summarized the effects of the foregoing factors on the adhesion to dental substrates.