Department of Stomatology, Ningbo No.2 Hospital, Ningbo City, Zhejiang Province, 315010, China.
Department of Stomatology, Zhoushan Hospital of Zhejiang Province, Zhoushan, Zhejiang Province, 316021, China.
Clin Oral Investig. 2023 Jun;27(6):2495-2511. doi: 10.1007/s00784-023-05007-0. Epub 2023 Apr 5.
This meta-analysis aimed to elucidate the effects of various acid etching patterns on the sensitivity of teeth and their clinical effectiveness following composite resin repair.
PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched for relevant studies on the postoperative sensitivity (POS) of composite resin restorations after using different bonding systems. The retrieval was from the inception of the databases to August 13, 2022, with no filter of written language. Literature screening was conducted by two independent researchers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool was adopted for quality evaluation, and Stata 15.0 for analysis.
Twenty-five randomized controlled trials were included in the present study. Following resin composite restoration, 1309 restorations were bonded by self-etching (SE) adhesives, whereas 1271 restorations were bonded by total-etching (TE) adhesives. The meta-analyses showed that there is no evidence to prove the SE and TE will affect POS at present when measured using the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria [RR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.04)], the World Dental Federation (FDI) [RR = 1.06 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.15)], or the visual analog scale (VAS) [SMD = 0.02 (95% CI: -0.15, 0.20)] scales. At a certain follow-up time, TE adhesives provide better outcomes in terms of color match, marginal staining, and marginal adaptation. In other words, TE adhesives have better esthetic results.
The type of bonding technique (ER and SE) does not affect the risk and degree of POS in class I/II and class V restorations. Further research is required to verify whether these findings apply to different forms of composite resin restorations.
Besides the fact that TE barely increase postoperative sensitivity, it also yields superior cosmetic results.
本荟萃分析旨在阐明不同酸蚀模式对牙齿敏感性的影响，以及在使用复合树脂修复后对其临床效果的影响。
检索了 PubMed、Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science 和 Embase 数据库中关于使用不同粘接系统后复合树脂修复术后敏感性（POS）的相关研究。检索时间从数据库建立到 2022 年 8 月 13 日，未对语言进行筛选。文献筛选由两名独立研究人员进行。采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险评估工具进行质量评价，采用 Stata 15.0 进行分析。
本研究纳入了 25 项随机对照试验。在进行树脂复合修复后，1309 个修复体采用自酸蚀（SE）粘接剂粘接，1271 个修复体采用全酸蚀（TE）粘接剂粘接。荟萃分析表明，目前使用改良美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准[RR=1.00（95%CI：0.96，1.04）]、世界牙科联盟（FDI）[RR=1.06（95%CI：0.98，1.15）]或视觉模拟评分（VAS）[SMD=0.02（95%CI：-0.15，0.20）]来衡量时，SE 和 TE 均不会影响 POS。在一定的随访时间内，TE 粘接剂在颜色匹配、边缘染色和边缘适应性方面具有更好的效果。换句话说，TE 粘接剂具有更好的美观效果。
粘接技术类型（ER 和 SE）不会影响 I/II 类和 V 类修复体的 POS 风险和程度。需要进一步的研究来验证这些发现是否适用于不同形式的复合树脂修复体。
除了 TE 几乎不会增加术后敏感性之外，它还能产生更好的美容效果。
