Tack-cure vs conventional polymerization methods: A systematic review on resin composite cements’ properties

IF 4.8 2区医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Journal of dentistry Pub Date : 2025-06-18 DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105917

Carlo D’Alessandro , Eugenia Baena , Uros Josic , Tatjana Maravic , Edoardo Mancuso , Laura Ceballos , Annalisa Mazzoni , Markus B. Blatz , Lorenzo Breschi , Claudia Mazzitelli

{"title":"Tack-cure vs conventional polymerization methods: A systematic review on resin composite cements’ properties","authors":"Carlo D’Alessandro , Eugenia Baena , Uros Josic , Tatjana Maravic , Edoardo Mancuso , Laura Ceballos , Annalisa Mazzoni , Markus B. Blatz , Lorenzo Breschi , Claudia Mazzitelli","doi":"10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105917","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This systematic review aimed to address the following research question: “What is the effect of tack-cure compared to conventional polymerization methods on the resin composite cements’ properties?”.</div></div><div><h3>Data and sources</h3><div>A comprehensive literature search was conducted across electronic databases, including Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest, without language or publication date restrictions. <em>In vitro</em> studies comparing tack-cure (TC) with conventional polymerization methods (light-cure, LC, and/or self-cure, SC) were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool for <em>in vitro</em> studies. This systematic review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Sixteen relevant articles were included in this systematic review. According to the QUIN tool, 1 study was ranked as \"low risk,\" 12 studies as \"medium risk,\" and 3 studies as \"high risk\" of bias. The resin cements evaluated were mainly dual-cure (DC) adhesive/multistep and self-adhesive/one step materials, whereas only 1 universal cement was investigated. Overall, TC provided comparable or superior mechanical properties compared to LC, and consistently outperformed SC alone. Furthermore, TC facilitated excess cement removal and improved interface quality. However, outcomes varied depending on the type of resin cement, polymerization protocol, and evaluation method.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>TC can provide mechanical properties and interface quality comparable or superior to conventional polymerization methods, while facilitating excess cement removal.</div></div><div><h3>Clinical significance</h3><div>TC appears to be a clinically useful technique that enhances handling without adversely affecting resin composite cements' properties. Clinicians should always follow manufacturers’ instructions and consider cement-specific characteristics.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15585,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry","volume":"160 ","pages":"Article 105917"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300571225003616","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This systematic review aimed to address the following research question: “What is the effect of tack-cure compared to conventional polymerization methods on the resin composite cements’ properties?”.

Data and sources

A comprehensive literature search was conducted across electronic databases, including Clarivate Analytics’ Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and ProQuest, without language or publication date restrictions. In vitro studies comparing tack-cure (TC) with conventional polymerization methods (light-cure, LC, and/or self-cure, SC) were included. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool for in vitro studies. This systematic review was reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Sixteen relevant articles were included in this systematic review. According to the QUIN tool, 1 study was ranked as "low risk," 12 studies as "medium risk," and 3 studies as "high risk" of bias. The resin cements evaluated were mainly dual-cure (DC) adhesive/multistep and self-adhesive/one step materials, whereas only 1 universal cement was investigated. Overall, TC provided comparable or superior mechanical properties compared to LC, and consistently outperformed SC alone. Furthermore, TC facilitated excess cement removal and improved interface quality. However, outcomes varied depending on the type of resin cement, polymerization protocol, and evaluation method.

Conclusions

TC can provide mechanical properties and interface quality comparable or superior to conventional polymerization methods, while facilitating excess cement removal.

Clinical significance

TC appears to be a clinically useful technique that enhances handling without adversely affecting resin composite cements' properties. Clinicians should always follow manufacturers’ instructions and consider cement-specific characteristics.

查看原文本刊更多论文

胶固化与常规聚合：树脂复合水泥性能的系统综述。

目的：本系统综述旨在解决以下研究问题：“与常规聚合方法相比，粘接固化对树脂复合水泥性能的影响是什么？”数据和来源：在电子数据库中进行了全面的文献检索，包括Clarivate Analytics的Web of Science、Cochrane Library、EMBASE、PubMed、Scopus和ProQuest，没有语言或出版日期限制。比较粘接固化（TC）与常规聚合方法（光固化，LC和/或自固化，SC）的体外研究包括在内。使用体外研究的QUIN工具评估偏倚风险。根据PRISMA指南报告了这一系统评价。结果：本系统综述纳入了16篇相关文章。根据QUIN工具，1项研究被列为“低风险”，12项研究被列为“中等风险”，3项研究被列为“高风险”。评估的树脂水泥主要是双固化（DC）粘合剂/多步和自粘合/一步材料，而仅研究了1种通用水泥。总的来说，与LC相比，TC提供了相当或更好的机械性能，并且始终优于单独的SC。此外，TC有助于去除多余的水泥，改善界面质量。然而，结果取决于树脂水泥的类型、聚合方案和评估方法。结论：TC可以提供与常规聚合方法相当或更好的力学性能和界面质量，同时有助于去除多余的水泥。临床意义：TC似乎是一种临床上有用的技术，可以在不影响树脂复合水泥性能的情况下增强处理能力。临床医生应始终遵循制造商的说明并考虑水泥的特定特性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科

CiteScore

7.30

自引率

11.40%

发文量

349

审稿时长

35 days

期刊介绍： The Journal of Dentistry has an open access mirror journal The Journal of Dentistry: X, sharing the same aims and scope, editorial team, submission system and rigorous peer review. The Journal of Dentistry is the leading international dental journal within the field of Restorative Dentistry. Placing an emphasis on publishing novel and high-quality research papers, the Journal aims to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. Topics covered include the management of dental disease, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research. The Journal of Dentistry will publish original scientific research papers including short communications. It is also interested in publishing review articles and leaders in themed areas which will be linked to new scientific research. Conference proceedings are also welcome and expressions of interest should be communicated to the Editor.