598
Views
25
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Composite–composite adhesion in dentistry: a systematic review and meta-analysis

&
Pages 2209-2229 | Received 20 Jun 2014, Accepted 19 Aug 2014, Published online: 03 Sep 2014
 

Abstract

Controversy exists in the literature regarding the most optimal repair procedure for improving the adhesion between the repair resin and the existing resin composite materials. This systematic review analyzed the adhesion potential of resin-based composites to similar and dissimilar composites. Original scientific papers on adhesion to composites published in MEDLINE (PubMed) database between 1 January 1955 and 1 June 2010 were included in this systematic review. Bond-strength data were evaluated for different factor levels, namely surface conditioning methods (control, physical, chemical, physicochemical), substrate–adherent type (being of the same kind or dissimilar), substrate aging (thermocycling or water storage), and test methods (macroshear, microshear, macrotensile, microtensile). The selection process resulted in the final sample of 41 studies. In total, 160 different surface conditioning methods, being mainly combinations of the use of etching agents, application of grinding or air-abrasion protocols, and adhesive promoters (silanes, adhesive resins), have been investigated. When substrate is aged with thermocycling, bond-strength results for composite–composite combinations of the same material were significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.010) and with the test method (p = 0.014), but for dissimilar composite–composite combinations, only test method (p = 0.000) showed a significant effect on the results. When substrate is aged with water storage, bond-strength results for composite–composite combinations of the same material were significantly influenced by the surface conditioning method (p = 0.000), but for dissimilar material combinations only test method showed a significant effect (p = 0.000) on the results. For the composite combinations of the same kind, the impact of surface conditioning type and the test method in thermocycled group was higher on the results.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Mrs H. Eschle, University of Zürich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Zürich, Switzerland, for her assistance with the library facilities and Mrs M. Roos, from the Division of Biostatistics, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, Switzerland for her support with the statistical analysis.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.