自粘树脂与自酸蚀或全酸蚀树脂粘结剂与氧化锆粘结强度的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析

Alireza Borouziniat, S. Majidinia, A. Shirazi, Fatemeh Kahnemuee
{"title":"自粘树脂与自酸蚀或全酸蚀树脂粘结剂与氧化锆粘结强度的比较:系统回顾和荟萃分析","authors":"Alireza Borouziniat, S. Majidinia, A. Shirazi, Fatemeh Kahnemuee","doi":"10.4103/jcde.jcde_225_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The aim of this study was to systematically compare the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia. The PubMed, ISI (all), and Scopus databases were searched for the selected keywords up to November 1, 2021, without date or language restrictions. In vitro studies comparing the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia were eligible for inclusion in the study. The selected articles were divided into four groups based on the type of resin cement and the storage time. Statistical analysis was performed using the Biostat Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software version 2 (α = 0.05). The effect of conventional cement ( Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI) and zinc phosphate) was analyzed using descriptive analysis. The initial search yielded 376 articles, of which 26 were selected after a methodological assessment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The results showed that the immediate or delay bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia has no significant difference with the bond strength of self-etch resin cement to zirconia. The immediate and delay bond strength of total-etch cement-zirconia was significantly lower than that of self-adhesive cement-zirconia (P = 0.00). A descriptive analysis of the selected articles showed that the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia was significantly higher than total-etch cement. The results of the meta-analysis showed that both self-adhesive and self-etch resin cement (if applied according to their manufacturer’s instruction) are suitable for bonding to zirconia.","PeriodicalId":516572,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics","volume":"7 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia: A systematic review and meta-analysis\",\"authors\":\"Alireza Borouziniat, S. Majidinia, A. Shirazi, Fatemeh Kahnemuee\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jcde.jcde_225_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The aim of this study was to systematically compare the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia. The PubMed, ISI (all), and Scopus databases were searched for the selected keywords up to November 1, 2021, without date or language restrictions. In vitro studies comparing the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia were eligible for inclusion in the study. The selected articles were divided into four groups based on the type of resin cement and the storage time. Statistical analysis was performed using the Biostat Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software version 2 (α = 0.05). The effect of conventional cement ( Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI) and zinc phosphate) was analyzed using descriptive analysis. The initial search yielded 376 articles, of which 26 were selected after a methodological assessment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The results showed that the immediate or delay bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia has no significant difference with the bond strength of self-etch resin cement to zirconia. The immediate and delay bond strength of total-etch cement-zirconia was significantly lower than that of self-adhesive cement-zirconia (P = 0.00). A descriptive analysis of the selected articles showed that the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia was significantly higher than total-etch cement. The results of the meta-analysis showed that both self-adhesive and self-etch resin cement (if applied according to their manufacturer’s instruction) are suitable for bonding to zirconia.\",\"PeriodicalId\":516572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics\",\"volume\":\"7 6\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcde.jcde_225_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jcde.jcde_225_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是系统地比较自粘树脂水泥和自酸蚀或全酸蚀树脂水泥与氧化锆的粘结强度。截至 2021 年 11 月 1 日,在 PubMed、ISI(全部)和 Scopus 数据库中对所选关键词进行了检索,没有日期或语言限制。比较自粘和自酸蚀或全酸蚀树脂水泥与氧化锆的粘结强度的体外研究均符合纳入研究的条件。所选文章根据树脂粘接剂的类型和储存时间分为四组。使用 Biostat 综合荟萃分析软件版本 2(α = 0.05)进行统计分析。采用描述性分析方法分析了传统粘接剂(玻璃离子树脂(GI)、树脂改性玻璃离子树脂(RMGI)和磷酸锌)的影响。初步检索共获得376篇文章,经过方法学评估后,从中筛选出26篇。两名审稿人独立提取数据并评估偏倚风险。结果表明,自粘树脂水门汀与氧化锆的即时或延迟粘结强度与自酸蚀树脂水门汀与氧化锆的粘结强度没有显著差异。全酸蚀水门汀-氧化锆的即时和延迟粘结强度明显低于自粘水门汀-氧化锆(P = 0.00)。对所选文章的描述性分析表明,自粘性树脂骨水泥与氧化锆的粘结强度明显高于全蚀骨水泥。荟萃分析的结果表明,自粘树脂水门汀和全蚀树脂水门汀(如果按照制造商的说明使用)都适合粘结氧化锆。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia: A systematic review and meta-analysis
The aim of this study was to systematically compare the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia. The PubMed, ISI (all), and Scopus databases were searched for the selected keywords up to November 1, 2021, without date or language restrictions. In vitro studies comparing the bond strength of self-adhesive and self-etch or total-etch resin cement to zirconia were eligible for inclusion in the study. The selected articles were divided into four groups based on the type of resin cement and the storage time. Statistical analysis was performed using the Biostat Comprehensive Meta-Analysis Software version 2 (α = 0.05). The effect of conventional cement ( Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI) and zinc phosphate) was analyzed using descriptive analysis. The initial search yielded 376 articles, of which 26 were selected after a methodological assessment. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The results showed that the immediate or delay bond strength of the self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia has no significant difference with the bond strength of self-etch resin cement to zirconia. The immediate and delay bond strength of total-etch cement-zirconia was significantly lower than that of self-adhesive cement-zirconia (P = 0.00). A descriptive analysis of the selected articles showed that the bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to zirconia was significantly higher than total-etch cement. The results of the meta-analysis showed that both self-adhesive and self-etch resin cement (if applied according to their manufacturer’s instruction) are suitable for bonding to zirconia.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信