Comparison of the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions. Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Arbildo-Vega, Heber; Lamas-Lara, César; Cruzado-Oliva, Fredy; Rosas-Prado, Carmen; Gómez-Fuertes, Alberto; Vásquez-Rodrigo, Hernán

;
;

dc.contributor	The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to published results.	en-US
dc.creator	Arbildo-Vega, Heber
dc.creator	Lamas-Lara, César
dc.creator	Cruzado-Oliva, Fredy
dc.creator	Rosas-Prado, Carmen
dc.creator	Gómez-Fuertes, Alberto
dc.creator	Vásquez-Rodrigo, Hernán
dc.date	2018-06-05
dc.identifier	http://www.joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2018.049
dc.identifier	10.17126/joralres.2018.049
dc.description	Objective: To compare, through a systematic review and a meta-analysis, the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives (UA) in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).  Material and Method: A search of the literature was carried out up to January 2018, in the biomedical databases: Pubmed, Embase, Scielo, Science Direct, SIGLE, LILACS, BBO, Google Scholar and the Central Register of Cochrane Clinical Trials. The selection criteria of the studies were as: randomized clinical trials, with a maximum age of 5 years and which report the clinical effects (marginal adaptation, discoloration or marginal staining, presence of secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, retention and fractures) of the UA in the treatment of NCCLs. The risk of study bias was analyzed through the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews of interventions.  Results: The search strategy resulted in eight articles that reported no difference in marginal adaptation, discoloration or marginal staining, presence of secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity among the adhesive strategies of the UA; however they reported a difference between the retention and the presence of fractures, with the conventional adhesive strategy resulting in a better clinical effect.  Conclusion: The reviewed literature suggests that the conventional adhesive strategy of UAs results in greater retention and absence of fractures in the treatment of NCCLs.	en-US
dc.format	application/pdf
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	Facultad de Odontología, Universidad de Concepción, Chile.	en-US
dc.relation	http://www.joralres.com/index.php/JOR/article/view/joralres.2018.049/442
dc.source	Journal of Oral Research; Vol 7 No 5; 210-222	es-ES
dc.source	Journal of Oral Research; Vol 7 No 5; 210-222	en-US
dc.source	0719-2479
dc.source	0719-2460
dc.subject	universal adhesives; non-carious cervical lesion; review; meta-analysis.	en-US
dc.title	Comparison of the clinical effect of the adhesive strategies of universal adhesives in the treatment of non-carious cervical lesions. Systematic review and meta-analysis.	en-US
dc.title		es-ES
dc.title		pt-BR
dc.title		pt-PT
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type	Reviews	en-US

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Journal of Oral Research
[0-9]{4}

Show simple item record