With the continuous development of adhesive technology leading to a wide variety of bonding systems in the market, clinicians are often faced with a vast number of systems to choose from. Although research and manufacture of bonding systems is constantly progressing, the focus has generally been on simplifying the bonding process by reducing the number of clinical steps, with little emphasis on evidence-based performance. This article draws attention to the current strategies of common commercially available products to guide clinicians during bonding system selection and application.
Van MeerbeekBYoshiharaKVan LanduytK, et al. From Buonocore’s Pioneering Acid-Etch Technique to Self-Adhering Restoratives. A Status Perspective of Rapidly Advancing Dental Adhesive Technology. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(1):7-34.
2.
van DijkenJWVSunnegårdh-GrönbergKLindbergA.clinical long-term retention of etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems in non-carious cervical lesions: A 13 years evaluation. Dent Mater. 2007;23(9):1101-1107.
3.
AlbaladejoAOsorioRToledanoM, et al. Hybrid layers of etch-and-rinse versus self-etching adhesive systems. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010;15(1):e112-8.
4.
LangerAIlieN.Dentin infiltration ability of different classes of adhesive systems. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(1):205-216.
5.
SeboldMAndréCBSahadiBO, et al. Chronological history and current advancements of dental adhesive systems development: a narrative review. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2021;35(18):1941-1967.
6.
TranXVTranKQ.Microleakage and characteristics of resin-tooth tissues interface of a self-etch and an etch-and-rinse adhesive systems. Restor Dent Endod. 2021;46(2):e30.
7.
WangYSpencerP.Quantifying adhesive penetration in adhesive/dentin interface using confocal Raman microspectroscopy. J Biomed Mater Res. 2002;59(1):46-55.
8.
GianniniMVermelhoPMde Araújo NetoVG, et al. An Update on Universal Adhesives: Indications and Limitations. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2022;9(3):57-65.
9.
NagarkarSTheis-MahonNPerdigãoJ.Universal dental adhesives: Current status, laboratory testing, and clinical performance. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2019;107(6):2121-2131.
10.
LopesGCThysDGKlausP, et al. Enamel acid etching: a review. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2007;28(1):18-24; quiz 5, 42.
11.
SatoASatoTIkedaM, et al. Influence of different tooth etchants on bur-cut and uncut enamel. Dent Mater J. 2023;42(3):311-318.
12.
PerdigãoJ.Dentin bonding—variables related to the clinical situation and the substrate treatment. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e24-e37.
13.
YoshidaYNagakaneKFukudaR, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004;83(6):454-458.
14.
ReisADourado LoguercioASchroederM, et al. Does the adhesive strategy influence the post-operative sensitivity in adult patients with posterior resin composite restorations?: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2015;31(9):1052-1067.
15.
SchroederMCorreaICBauerJ, et al. Influence of adhesive strategy on clinical parameters in cervical restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2017;62:36-53.
16.
Conrads G, About I. Pathophysiology of Dental Caries. In: SchwendickeFFrenckenJInnesN. (Eds). Caries Excavation: Evolution of Treating Cavitated Carious Lesions. Basel: S.Karger AG; 2018. p.1–10.
17.
IsolanCPSarkis-OnofreRLimaGS, et al. Bonding to Sound and Caries-Affected Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(1):7-18.
18.
BarrosMMAFDe Queiroz RodriguesMIMunizFWMG, et al. Selective, stepwise, or nonselective removal of carious tissue: which technique offers lower risk for the treatment of dental caries in permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):521-532.
19.
HashimotoMOhnoHSanoH, et al. In vitro degradation of resin-dentin bonds analyzed by microtensile bond test, scanning and transmission electron microscopy. Biomaterials. 2003;24(21):3795-3803.
20.
HashimotoMTayFROhnoH, et al. SEM and TEM analysis of water degradation of human dentinal collagen. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater. 2003;66(1):287-298.
21.
Van MeerbeekBDe MunckJYoshidaY, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003;28(3):215-235.
22.
PerdigãoJ.Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (1) Dentin adhesion – not there yet. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020;56(1):190-207.
23.
MazzoniATjäderhaneLChecchiV, et al. Role of dentin MMPs in caries progression and bond stability. J Dent Res. 2015;94(2):241-251.
24.
FrassettoABreschiLTurcoG, et al. Mechanisms of degradation of the hybrid layer in adhesive dentistry and therapeutic agents to improve bond durability–A literature review. Dent Mater. 2016;32(2):e41-53.
25.
AminFFareedMAZafarMS, et al. Degradation and Stabilization of Resin-Dentine Interfaces in Polymeric Dental Adhesives: An Updated Review. Coatings. 2022;12(8):1094.
26.
SofanESofanAPalaiaG, et al. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2017;8(1):1-17.
27.
Tjäderhane L. Dentin bonding: can we make it last?Oper Dent. 2015;40(1):4-18.
28.
CarrilhoMROCarvalhoRMde GoesMF, et al. Chlorhexidine Preserves Dentin Bond in vitro. J Dent Res. 2007;86(1):90-94.
29.
CarrilhoMROGeraldeliSTayF, et al. In vivo Preservation of the Hybrid Layer by Chlorhexidine. J Dent Res. 2007;86(6):529-533.
30.
BreschiLMazzoniANatoF, et al. Chlorhexidine stabilizes the adhesive interface: A 2-year in vitro study. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):320-325.
31.
LoguercioADHassVGutierrezMF, et al. Five-year Effects of Chlorhexidine on the In Vitro Durability of Resin/Dentin Interfaces. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18(1):35-42.
32.
SartoriNStolfSCSilvaSB, et al. Influence of chlorhexidine digluconate on the clinical performance of adhesive restorations: a 3-year follow-up. J Dent. 2013;41(12):1188-1195.
33.
MontagnerAFSarkis-OnofreRPereira-CenciT, et al. MMP Inhibitors on Dentin Stability: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Dent Res. 2014;93(8):733-743.
34.
CoelhoAAmaroIRascãoB, et al. Effect of Cavity Disinfectants on Dentin Bond Strength and Clinical Success of Composite Restorations—A Systematic Review of In Vitro, In Situ and Clinical Studies. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(1):353.
35.
BreschiLMaravicTCunhaSR, et al. Dentin bonding systems: From dentin collagen structure to bond preservation and clinical applications. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):78-96.
36.
SzeszAParreirasSReisA, et al. Selective enamel etching in cervical lesions for self-etch adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;53:1-11.
37.
ValsanDBhaskaranSMathewJ, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Bonding Efficacy of Multimode Adhesive, Two-Step Self-Etch Adhesive, and a Total-Etch System to Pulpal Floor Dentin – An In vitro Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2023;14(2):104-108.
38.
JosicUMazzitelliCMaravicT, et al. The influence of selective enamel etch and self-etch mode of universal adhesives’ application on clinical behavior of composite restorations placed on non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater. 2022;38(3):472-488.
39.
PatanjaliSAroraAAryaA, et al. An In Vitro Study of Effect of Beveling of Enamel on Microleakage and Shear Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems in Primary and Permanent Teeth. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(3):205-210.
40.
De MunckJMineAPoitevinA, et al. Meta-analytical review of parameters involved in dentin bonding. J Dent Res. 2012;91(4):351-357.
41.
SezinandoA.Looking for the ideal adhesive – A review. Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia, Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial. 2014;55(4):194-206.
42.
ReisALeiteTMMatteK, et al. Improving clinical retention of one-step self-etching adhesive systems with an additional hydrophobic adhesive layer. J Am Dent Assoc. 2009;140(7):877-885.
43.
SezinandoALuque-MartinezIMuñozMA, et al. Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the immediate and 6-month dentin bonding of three universal adhesives. Dent Mater. 2015;31(10):e236-e46.
44.
WangXLiHChenL, et al. Effects of simplified ethanol–wet bonding and hydrophobic coating on resin–dentin bonding properties. J Adhes Sci Technol. 2020;35(9):913-927.
45.
PerdigãoJCeballosLGiráldezI, et al. Effect of a hydrophobic bonding resin on the 36-month performance of a universal adhesive–a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):765-776.
46.
LoguercioADMuñozMALuque-MartinezI, et al. Does active application of universal adhesives to enamel in self-etch mode improve their performance?J Dent. 2015;43(9):1060-1070.
47.
Zander-GrandeCAmaralRCLoguercioA, et al. Clinical Performance of One-step Self-etch Adhesives Applied Actively in Cervical Lesions: 24-month Cinical Trial. Oper Dent. 2014;39(3):228-238.
48.
SiqueiraFSFArmas-VegaAIzquierdo-BucheliA, et al. Does the Conditioning Mode and Duration of Universal Adhesives Affect the Bonding Effectiveness to Fluorotic Enamel?J Adhes Dent. 2019;21(6):525-536.