Adhesive Bond Strength of Restorative Materials to Caries-Affected Dentin Treated with Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
{"title":"Adhesive Bond Strength of Restorative Materials to Caries-Affected Dentin Treated with Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Yasser F AlFawaz","doi":"10.1089/photob.2023.0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to caries-affected dentin (CAD) treated with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in comparison with conventional chemical disinfectants. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Three databases, including the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were searched to address the focused question: \"What is the effect of aPDT compared to conventional chemical disinfection techniques on the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD?.\" Search keywords included \"dentin*\" \"adhes bond*\" \"caries-affected dentin\" \"photodynamic \"photochemotherapy\" \"photosensitizing agent\" \"phototherapy\" \"photoradiation\" \"laser\" \"light activated\" \"photoactivated.\" A fixed-effects model was used in each meta-analysis and the inverse variance was used to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD). For evaluating the statistical heterogeneity, the Cochrane's <i>Q</i> test and the <i>I<sup>2</sup></i> statistics were used. The risk of bias was evaluated based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Fourteen studies were included in the qualitative as well as quantitative analysis. The results of the meta-analyses exhibited an SMD of 2.38% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.03-2.73; <i>p</i> < 0.00001], indicating a statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength scores between the tested group (samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., favoring the sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). Contrarily, an SMD of -1.46% (95% CI: -2.04 to -0.88; <i>p</i> < 0.00001) and -0.37% (95% CI: -0.70 to -0.03; <i>p</i> = 0.03) was observed, indicating a statistically significant difference in the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), as well as microleakage scores between the tested group (favoring the samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD treated with conventional chemical disinfectants showed superior outcomes compared to photodynamic therapy (aPDT).</p>","PeriodicalId":94169,"journal":{"name":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","volume":" ","pages":"125-139"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2023.0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to caries-affected dentin (CAD) treated with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in comparison with conventional chemical disinfectants. Methods: Three databases, including the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were searched to address the focused question: "What is the effect of aPDT compared to conventional chemical disinfection techniques on the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD?." Search keywords included "dentin*" "adhes bond*" "caries-affected dentin" "photodynamic "photochemotherapy" "photosensitizing agent" "phototherapy" "photoradiation" "laser" "light activated" "photoactivated." A fixed-effects model was used in each meta-analysis and the inverse variance was used to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD). For evaluating the statistical heterogeneity, the Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistics were used. The risk of bias was evaluated based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the qualitative as well as quantitative analysis. The results of the meta-analyses exhibited an SMD of 2.38% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.03-2.73; p < 0.00001], indicating a statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength scores between the tested group (samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., favoring the sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). Contrarily, an SMD of -1.46% (95% CI: -2.04 to -0.88; p < 0.00001) and -0.37% (95% CI: -0.70 to -0.03; p = 0.03) was observed, indicating a statistically significant difference in the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), as well as microleakage scores between the tested group (favoring the samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). Conclusions: Adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD treated with conventional chemical disinfectants showed superior outcomes compared to photodynamic therapy (aPDT).
目的:比较抗菌光动力治疗(aPDT)与常规化学消毒剂对龋病牙本质(CAD)修复材料的粘接强度。方法:检索Web of Science、Scopus和PubMed三个数据库,以解决重点问题:“与传统化学消毒技术相比,aPDT对修复材料与CAD的粘合强度有何影响?”搜索关键词包括“牙本质*”、“粘接键*”、“龋齿影响牙本质”、“光动力”、“光化学疗法”、“光敏剂”、“光疗”、“光辐射”、“激光”、“光激活”、“光激活”。每次meta分析均采用固定效应模型,并采用逆方差计算标准均值差(SMD)。采用Cochrane’s Q检验和I2统计量评价统计异质性。偏倚风险根据Cochrane Collaboration的工具进行评估。结果:定性和定量分析共纳入14项研究。meta分析结果显示SMD为2.38%[95%置信区间(CI): 2.03-2.73;观察到p p p = 0.03),表明测试组(aPDT处理的样品)与对照组(正常牙本质和/或常规化学消毒剂)之间的微拉伸粘结强度(μTBS)和微泄漏评分差异具有统计学意义。结论:与光动力治疗(aPDT)相比,常规化学消毒剂对CAD修复材料的粘接强度有更好的效果。