Next Article in Journal
The Consequences of GBA Deficiency in the Autophagy–Lysosome System in Parkinson’s Disease Associated with GBA
Next Article in Special Issue
Macrophages: From Simple Phagocyte to an Integrative Regulatory Cell for Inflammation and Tissue Regeneration—A Review of the Literature
Previous Article in Journal
Maternal Hyperhomocysteinemia Disturbs the Mechanisms of Embryonic Brain Development and Its Maturation in Early Postnatal Ontogenesis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Reporting Criteria for Clinical Trials on Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ): A Review and Recommendations
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cells
Volume 12
Issue 1
10.3390/cells12010190
cells-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Systematic Review

Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

by
Louis Hardan
1,
Rim Bourgi
1,2,
Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez
3,*,
Walter Devoto
4,
Maciej Zarow
5,
Paulo Monteiro
6,
Natalia Jakubowicz
5,
Amine El Zoghbi
7,
Dariusz Skaba
8,
Davide Mancino
2,9,10,
Naji Kharouf
2,9,
Youssef Haïkel
2,9,10 and
Monika Lukomska-Szymanska
11,*
1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
2
Department of Biomaterials and Bioengineering, INSE&RM UMR_S 1121, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, 67000 Strasbourg, France
3
Dental Materials Laboratory, Academic Area of Dentistry, Autonomous University of Hidalgo State, Circuito Ex Hacienda La Concepción S/N, San Agustín Tlaxiaca 42160, Hidalgo, Mexico
4
Independent Researcher, 16030 Liguria, Italy
5
“NZOZ SPS Dentist” Dental Clinic and Postgraduate Course Centre, pl. Inwalidow 7/5, 30-033 Cracow, Poland
6
Clinical Research Unit (CRU), Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Egas Moniz, CRL, Monte de Caparica, 2829-511 Caparica, Portugal
7
Department of Prosthetic Dentistry and Occlusion, School of Dentistry, Saint-Joseph University, Beirut 1107 2180, Lebanon
8
Department of Periodontal Diseases and Oral Mucosa Diseases, Faculty of Medical Sciences in Zabrze, Medical University of Silesia, 40-055 Katowice, Poland
9
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, 67000 Strasbourg, France
10
Pôle de Médecine et Chrirugie Bucco-Dentaire, Hôpital Civil, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France
11
Department of General Dentistry, Medical University of Lodz, 251 Pomorska St., 92-213 Lodz, Poland
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Cells 2023, 12(1), 190; https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010190
Submission received: 14 November 2022 / Revised: 11 December 2022 / Accepted: 30 December 2022 / Published: 3 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Mineralized Tissues Repair and Regeneration)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Diverse types of dental adhesives exhibit different cytotoxic outcomes on cells in vitro. Currently, no standard adhesive application technique has so far been decisive for clinicians for better durability of resin–dentin bonds of adhesive systems. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the bonding performance of adhesive systems to dentin by using different application modalities. The systematic research strategy was conducted by two reviewers among multiple databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scielo. In vitro studies reporting the effects of additional steps for the application of adhesive systems on the bond strength to dentin were selected. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 using the random effects model. The methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed according to the parameters of a previous systematic review. The electronic research through different databases generated a total of 8318 references. After the examination of titles and abstracts, a total of 106 potentially relevant studies accessed the full-text evaluation phase. After full-text examination, 78 publications were included for the qualitative analysis, and 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Regarding the etch-and-rinse adhesive systems, the application modalities that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer (p = 0.005), an extended application time (p < 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current (p < 0.001), a double-layer application (p = 0.05), the agitation technique (p = 0.02), and the active application of the adhesive (p < 0.001). For self-etch adhesive systems, the techniques that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer (p < 0.001), an extended application time (p = 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current (p < 0.001), a double-layer application (p < 0.001), the agitation technique (p = 0.01), and the active application of the adhesive (p < 0.001). The in vitro evidence suggests that the application of adhesive systems using alternative techniques or additional strategies may be beneficial for improving their bond strength to dentin. The application modalities that favored the overall bond strength to dentin were an extended application time, a double-layer application, an application assisted by an electric current, the active application of the adhesive, and the application of a hydrophobic resin layer. Worth mentioning is that some techniques are intended to increase the degree of the conversion of the materials, and therefore, improvements in the biocompatibility of the materials can be expected.

1. Introduction

Over the years, adhesive systems have been introduced into many fields of modern restorative dentistry; however, there are still some unresolved problems concerning the durability of the resin–dentin bond interface [1]. Adhesion to enamel structures has become a predictable and well-established procedure [2], whereas adhesion to dentin, due to its heterogeneous structure and histology, has been considered defiant [3,4]. In fact, achieving an ideal interdiffusion of the adhesive system within collagen fibrils and the stability of the resin–dentin interface are of key importance [5]. Accordingly, it is fundamental to recognize the mechanism of dentin hybridization, in which an interdiffusion zone, also called the hybrid layer (HL), is created and, consequently, leads to the formation of micromechanical retention of the dental composite restoration [6]. Thus, the HL is a combination of residual hydroxyapatite (HAp), collagen, solvents, and resin monomers, and its strength ultimately relies on the resistance of each constituent to degradation phenomena [7,8].
Through adhesion procedures, the mineral component is partly or completely removed by the acidic monomers of self-etch (SE) or etch-and-rinse (E&R) adhesive systems [9]. A simplification of the conventional view of dental bonding by means of a faster application, a less-sensitive method, and numerous optional applicability is feasible today with the advent of universal adhesives [3,6,9]. These strategies have been used for enamel and dentin bonding to resin-based materials with a number of steps. Strengths have been focused regarding the lessening of the number of steps, the decrease in potential errors, and the reduction in the technique sensitivity related to the bonding procedure [9]. Currently, these dentin bonding agents are comprised of monomers with both hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups, polymerization modulators, and somewhat high concentrations of organic solvents [10]. These solvents help as diluting agents and enhance the spreading, wetting, and penetration of monomers within the microporosities of the exposed, acid- demineralized collagen network [11]. However, it is important to emphasize that the higher the solvent content within the polymer, the lower the resin–dentin bond strength and the mechanical properties of the cured resin [12].
Ideally, any remaining solvent must be evaporated from the dentinal surface by air-drying the applied adhesive prior to photoactivation. The presence of a residual solvent might jeopardize the polymerization of resin monomers, affecting the integrity of the bond, compromising the quality of the polymer inside the HL, and producing undesirable voids within the adhesive interface. These voids may act as defect-initiator sites, providing a pathway for nanoleakage, causing a decrease in bond strength and mechanical properties [13,14]. Solvent evaporation can be achieved by allowing an evaporation time between the application and the curing of the adhesive or by air-drying using an air syringe [15]. All in all, the evaporation of solvents from the adhesive depends on numerous features, such as the type of solvent, the tooth–syringe distance, the type of monomer, operator skills, and the air temperature, which appears to impact the air-drying time of an adhesive system [16].
Furthermore, there are different strategies that can be used to facilitate the removal of solvents and enhance the durability of adhesive systems, such as prolonged air-drying, using a warm-air stream on the primer or the adhesive system [7], a prolonged application time, active bonding application, multiple adhesive coatings, an extra layer of hydrophobic coat, and increased light-curing exposure [17].
Suitably, a better definition of the gold standard technique for applying adhesive systems to dentin should be of great consideration. Accordingly, many approaches, including active bonding application, multiple-layer application (two layers or more), and the modification of the adhesive application time, might be introduced by clinicians in their daily practice in order to improve the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin. The issue is that, until now, there has been no ideal protocol for achieving the stable and optimal adhesion of adhesive systems to dentin. Likewise, the improvement in bond strength can be realized by means of several strategies and, thus, has been advocated by various authors [5,7,9,10,17,18].
Another topic to be addressed is related to the fact that as these materials come in close and prolonged contact with vital dentin, biocompatibility is one of the most critical requirements for dental adhesives [19]. Methacrylate monomers (i.e., bis-GMA, UDMA, and HEMA) were reported to induce toxicity via GSH (intracellular glutathione) depletion, cell cycle arrest, apoptosis/necrosis, and even apoptosis of human gingival fibroblast [20,21]. It is a well-known fact that morphological changes in several types of cells, apoptosis, and growth suppression can be generated by HEMA [22,23]. The release of resin monomers has been proposed as one of the possible causes of the adverse effects of dentin adhesives [24], and therefore, the definition of the gold standard technique for applying adhesive systems to dentin must imply a technique that ensures the achievement of the highest possible degree of conversion of the material.
Apart from the above report and to the extent of the researchers’ knowledge, no standard adhesive application technique has so far been decisive for clinicians for better durability of resin–dentin bonds of adhesive systems. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to systematically review the literature to evaluate the bonding performance of adhesive systems to dentin by using different application modalities. The null hypothesis to be tested is that different application modalities do not provide similar bond strength to dentin when compared to the application of the adhesive, according to the manufacturer’s instructions.

2. Materials and Methods

The present systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted following the guidance of PRISMA (preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses) in order to follow a uniform and transparent methodology [25]. The following PICOS framework was used: population, dentin; intervention, different application modalities; control, application of the adhesive according to the manufacturer’s instructions; outcomes, bond strength; and study design, in vitro studies. The research question was: “Does the use of different application modalities improve the bonding performance of adhesive systems to dentin?”

2.1. Literature Search

The systematic research strategy was conducted by two (R.B. and C.E.C.-S.) reviewers among multiple databases: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Scielo. The literature search was performed on 2 August 2022. The search strategy used in PubMed is described in the Table 1. The search strategy for the other databases was adapted from that used for PubMed. After the search, all articles were imported into Mendeley Desktop 1.17.11 software (Glyph & Cog, LLC, London, UK) to eliminate duplicates.

2.2. Study Selection

All the articles were imported into Rayyan online tool [26], and the titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify studies that potentially met the following eligibility criteria: (1) in vitro studies reporting the effect of the use of additional steps for the application of adhesive systems on the bond strength to dentin; (2) evaluating the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin with a resin-based material as an antagonist; (3) including a control group in which the adhesive system was applied according to manufacturers’ instructions; (4) including mean and standard deviation (SD) data in MPa on shear, micro-shear, tensile, and micro-tensile bond tests. Only manuscripts published in the English language were considered. Case series, case reports, pilot studies, and reviews were excluded. Afterwards, full texts were reviewed, and a systematic methodology was used to label all the relevant information for the exclusion or the inclusion of the individual papers. The decision process was performed by two independent reviewers (L.H. and R.B.). In case of disagreement between the reviewers, the final decision was reached through consultation with a third reviewer (C.E.C.-S.), a senior, experienced researcher.

2.3. Data Extraction

The results of the selected studies were extracted using Microsoft Office Excel 2019 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). These data comprised the year of publication, the type of adhesive system, strategy evaluated for bonding to dentin, outcomes evaluated, the type of bond strength test evaluated, and storage conditions. Additionally, the mean, SD, and number of specimens from the bond strength test were collected, and these data were then subjected to meta-analysis.

2.4. Quality Assessment

The methodological quality of each in vitro study was assessed by two reviewers (L.H. and R.B.), according to the parameters of a previous systematic review [17]. The risk of bias in each article was evaluated according to the description of the following parameters: specimen randomization, single operator, operator blinded, control group, standardized specimens, failure mode, manufacturers’ instructions, and sample size calculation. If the authors reported the parameter, the study received a “YES” for that specific parameter. In the case of missing information, the parameter received a “NO.” The risk of bias was classified according to the sum of “YES” answers received: 1 to 3 indicated a high bias, 4 to 6 medium, and 7 to 8 indicated a low risk of bias.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). The analysis was carried out using the random-effects model, and pooled-effect estimates were obtained by comparing the standardized mean difference between bond strength values obtained from the control and experimental groups. The control group was considered when the adhesive system was applied according to the manufacturers’ instructions, while the experimental group was considered when the adhesive system was applied using a different approach. In studies where several experimental groups were compared with the same control group, data from the experimental groups (mean, SD, and sample size) were combined for the meta-analysis [27]. E&R and SE adhesives were analyzed separately. Subgroups considering the immediate and long-term bond strength data were used. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Statistical heterogeneity of the treatment effect among studies was assessed using the Cochran Q test and the inconsistency I2 test.

3. Results

The electronic research through three different databases generated a total of 8318 references, which were reduced to 6441 after duplicate removal. After the examination of titles and abstracts, 6335 studies were excluded because of their study design incompatibility with this review. A total of 106 potentially relevant studies accessed the full-text evaluation phase. From these, 19 were excluded because there was no access to the full-text manuscript [28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45], resulting in a final number of 87 publications included for further qualitative assessment (Figure 1). After a full-text review, 9 articles were excluded because the bond strength was not tested [46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54], leaving 78 publications for qualitative analysis. Of these, 10 studies were excluded from the quantitative analysis: 1 study did not present the data in the form of mean and SD [55], 3 studies did not have other studies for making comparisons [43,56,57], 3 studies did not contain a clearly defined control group [58,59,60], and in 3 articles, complete data could not be extracted [32,61,62]. Thus, 68 studies were included in the meta-analysis.
The qualitative synthesis of the studies included in this systematic review are summarized in Table S1. Both E&R and SE adhesives were identified; universal adhesives applied in both adhesive strategies were recognized too. Several strategies were identified, including the active application of the adhesive, multiple-layer application, the application of the adhesive using an electric current, an extended application time, the application of an extra hydrophobic resin layer, the application of the adhesive using an ultrasonic device, and a shortened application time. Most of the studies evaluated the bond strength after 24 h of aging, and for the long-term tests, both distilled water storage and thermocycling were identified.
The results from the meta-analysis are shown in Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7, Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14. Regarding E&R adhesive systems, the application modalities that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer (p = 0.005), an extended application time (p < 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current (p < 0.001), a double-layer application (p = 0.05), and the active application of the adhesive (p < 0.001). Worth mentioning is that the above-mentioned techniques improved, mostly, long-term bond strength. On the other hand, only the use of an ultrasonic device did not improve bond strength (p = 0.43) (Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7).
For the SE adhesive systems, a similar behavior was observed. The techniques that improved the overall bond strength were the application of a hydrophobic resin layer (p < 0.001), an extended application time (p = 0.001), an application assisted by an electric current (p < 0.001), a double-layer application (p < 0.001), and the active application of the adhesive (p = 0.001). Once again, subgroup analysis showed that the statistically significant improvement was observed only for long-term bond strength. On the other hand, the use of an ultrasonic device did not show any improvement (p = 0.39); while the use of reduced application times impaired bond strength (p = 0.008) (Figure 8, Figure 9, Figure 10, Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 13 and Figure 14).
According to the parameters for methodological quality assessment, most studies included were classified with medium risk of bias (Table S2). Most of the studies analyzed failed to report the single operator, operator blinded, and sample size calculation parameters.

4. Discussion

A systematic review and meta-analysis were directed concerning the assessment of the bond strength of adhesive systems to dentin depending on distinctive application modalities: an extra hydrophobic resin layer, an extended application time, a double-layer application, an application assisted by an electric current, the active application of the adhesive, the use of an ultrasonic device, and a reduced application time. Most of the application modalities improved dentin bond strength, while few impaired dentin bond strength. Considering this, the null hypothesis stating that the different application modalities would not provide similar bond strength to dentin when compared to the application of the adhesive according to the manufacturer’s instructions was partially rejected.
One of the utmost pertinent conducts to distinguish a commercial dentinal adhesive product is to measure the bond strength [125]. The most popular bond strength testing methods apply tensile or shear force; further, most adhesion strength examinations are executed on enamel or dentinal surfaces [126]. At the beginning of adhesive dentistry, shear and tensile bond strength tests were performed exclusively on specimens with relatively large, bonded areas [127]. Over the years, micro-bond strength tests have been developed claiming that smaller test specimens are “stronger” than larger ones due to the lower probability of the presence of critical sized defects [128]. Additionally, it was claimed that the long-term bond strength evaluation of dental adhesive systems would provide better clinical correlation since, under aging procedures, the resin–tooth interface could be prone to degradation, as occurs in a clinical scenario [1].
Appropriately, numerous methods have been argued to offer noteworthy benefits in enhancing dentinal bond strength, promoting resin infiltration, and solvent evaporation, and they were proposed depending on the application modalities [17]. The purpose of this study is to determine the influence of several changes to the manufacturer’s protocol application mode on dentinal bond strength.
The application of an extra bonding layer comprises an application of a supplementary layer of a hydrophobic resin to coat the adhesive [90]. The hydrophilic characteristic of the monomers inside some adhesives makes them permeable to water and compromises dentinal bonding durability. This is due to the affinity of the monomer for generating hydrogen bonds with the hydrophilic portion of acidic monomers existent in the mixture, which changes the formation of the polymer chains [91]. In an attempt to maintain the quality of the adhesive layer, many authors proved that the application of an extra bonding layer results in (1) higher bond strength, (2) higher hydrophobicity, (3) thicker adhesive layer, (4) better-sealed interface, (5) higher conversion rate, (6) better polymerization efficiency by a reduction in the detrimental effects of polymerization stress of composites resins, (7) better mechanical properties, and (8) less possible hydrolytic degradation of resin and collagen fibrils [49,129,130]. This strategy helps in stabilizing the adhesive interface against water sorption from the outer oral cavity and water ingress by osmosis from the dentin substrate [90,92]. SE adhesives are hydrophilic materials, so additional protection is necessary. Besides this, even E&R adhesives, especially those that are formulated using 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA), are also hydrophilic, so an extra hydrophobic layer can reduce the concentration of retained solvents and unreacted monomers [131]. Hence, to increase the bond strength of the adhesive–dentin interface [132], an extra layer of hydrophobic coat is preferred, as was demonstrated by this meta-analysis.
In the bonding approach to the dentin structure, it is deemed crucial to prolong the application time of adhesive systems for better bond performance and better monomer diffusion, and this is possible by enhancing the chemical interaction between monomers and HAp [93]. This approach increases the saturation of collagen fibrils by resin, as monomers preferably must plug the space between the exposed collagen [133,134]; otherwise, the performance and durability of adhesive systems might be compromised. Further, when a longer application time of the adhesive was achieved, more solvated monomers could evaporate, hereafter authorizing the advance of a stronger polymer within the dentinal surface and superior resin–dentin bond strength [69,135]. This statement is in agreement with this meta-analysis. Further, any recommendation for reducing the application times must be established on an extensive in vivo and in vitro documentation; therefore, it is powerfully logical to follow the manufacturers’ directions for adhesive application.
Another bonding application is the use of a multiple-layer application. A previous paper demonstrated that by using this approach, an increase in immediate dentin bond strength was achieved, but no improvement in bond strength was observed after aging [17]. The current trends in bonding appear to favor a single application of adhesive systems, but this could not create a thicker HL or adhesive layer in which micromechanical retention with the underlying composite resin exists. However, previous papers proposed that double or triple adhesive layers enhance dentin bond strength by improving monomer penetration into the HL and increasing chemical interactions [93,99]. Consequently, an additional layer application should be considered as a fundamental clinical step. Supplementarily, 10-MDP monomer needs an appropriate time of 20 s for its chemical interaction to take place; nevertheless, applying a second coat of such a monomer without curing the first one permits the first layer to adequately interact with HAp and, therefore, promotes additional bonding [136]. Further, it should be noted that the amplified dentin bond strength under double application is due to numerous mechanisms working concurrently. As the solvent inside adhesives is evaporated between each adhesive layer, the concentration of co-monomers that subsist after each layer application rises [93], consequently refining the quality of the HL [137]. A previous report [137] showed that there was an improvement in the dentin bond performance when multiple adhesive layers were applied but not cured. This cannot be accredited to the upsurge in adhesive layer thickness but nonetheless to the perfected quality of the adhesive layer. The thickness of the adhesive layer increases only when each coat of adhesive is light-cured. This safeguards that the demineralized dentinal substrate will be sufficiently protected, lessening the detrimental effects of oxygen inhibition by means of defective bond formation for both SE [93,100,138] and E&R adhesives [139]. All in all, double application layers are suggested for clinicians, and the material and substrate contents of each adhesive should be taken into consideration.
Additionally, an application assisted by an electric current and the active application of adhesive systems enhanced the dentin bond performance of the etching mode by facilitating the penetration of adhesives into the branches of dentinal tubules. Further, an adhesive application protocol based on the use of an electric signal has been introduced by some investigators [29,52,80,81,112]. This technique improves the chemical interaction between adhesive systems and tooth structures and, thus, increases monomer infiltration of the demineralized dentinal substrate by altering the surface charges and hydrogen bonding potential of the dentin substrate [82,112,113,140]. Consequently, there is an enhancement of dentinal wettability, leading to solvent evaporation [112]. Furthermore, electrically assisted methods enhance dentin bond strength and reduce nanoleakage in the HL [82,83,112,140]. However, it requires a special device for the adhesive application that releases adhesive by an electrical potential difference between the adhesive system and tooth surfaces [113]. Resin monomer diffusion into etched dentin could be enhanced through the use of electric current, as polar constituents, such as HEMA, polyalkanoic acid, biphenyl dimethacrylates copolymers, and dipentaerythritol penta-acrylate phosphate, contained in the adhesive formulation might interact with the electric field [82]. It has been formerly stated that electrical currents endorse the movement of an ionized substrate [141,142]. Though, it is still uncertain whether suitable dentin hybridization could be formed by easing the impregnation of ionized substrates in diverse conditions and enhancing the removal of water for SE adhesives [143,144]. Next, the application of an electric current might also increase the water substitution rate by means of the modification of water dipoles, thus, preferring water–solvent exchange throughout resin infiltration [90]. It has been claimed that the application of electric currents between 30 and 35 μA meaningfully improved bond strength and bonding quality [80]. This could be considered safe, as bonding procedures performed with 35 μA could not affect cell viability [113]. Ideally, as suggested by this analysis, the use of an electric current during the application of E&R and SE adhesive systems has been claimed to increase the bonding of an adhesive to dentin by enhancing substrate impregnation.
Agitation can deliver a reliable etch; furthermore, it can enhance the interaction between the acidic monomers and dental substrate [145]. Actually, the active application of adhesives using a scrubbing technique leads to the impregnation of a higher rate of monomers inside the smear layer and facilitates solvent evaporation, hence, improving adhesive interface quality. This technique does not require any supplementary step [146]. In addition, agitation preserves freshly acidic solution in interactions with the tooth substrate. Hence, improving the immediate bond performance of the simplified E&R adhesive systems [37,84]. It seems that previous reports suggested that higher bond strength was achieved when a two-step SE adhesive system was used. This could be explained by the complete dissolution of the smear layer into the adhesive [147]. On the other hand, a dissimilar finding was detected by Miyazaki et al. when testing the same adhesion strategy [145]. Another study proposed that the performance of SE adhesive systems was related to the agitation duration time [60]. All in all, adhesive agitation was able to increase the moieties’ kinetics and permit better monomer diffusion inward; however, the solvents spread outward [85].
On the other hand, it seems that the use of an ultrasonic device did not show any improvement for both SE and E&R adhesive systems in this analysis. The ultrasonic mode might not enhance the dentinal bond performance outcomes of some SE adhesive systems. Ultrasonics is a division of acoustics concerned with the help of sound vibrations that possess a frequency range above the audible level. One should state that the frequency in the oscillating instruments in dental practice is ultrasonic for frequencies ranging from 20,000 to 40,000 Hz. In addition, it is considered sonic when the frequency ranges from 1000 to 6000 Hz [120]. The application of ultrasonic agitation energy could induce acoustic streaming and upsurge infiltration of the dentin adhesive into the dentinal substrate. This conclusion seems to not support the results of this meta-analysis, as improvement in dentin bond strength was not observed in all adhesives tested.
The analysis of this review exhibited that the use of reduced application times impaired the dentin bond strength of SE adhesive systems. Currently, clinicians begin to escalate the settlements related to step reduction in both E&R [148] and SE adhesives [149]. A recently launched adhesive system by manufacturers, named G-Premio Bond universal adhesive (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), delivers dental clinicians an alternative to the SE approach for adhesion to dentin without the need to wait for the adhesive to interact with the bonding substrate (no-waiting SE; Japanese version of manufacturer’s instructions), or the interaction occurs after leaving the adhesive undisturbed for 10 s (10 s SE; international version of manufacturer’s instructions) [123]. This new concept of a no-waiting adhesive, while pleasing to many clinicians, must not compromise the performance and durability of adhesion to dentin. The author concluded that the no-waiting SE approach prior to adhesive polymerization might gave sufficient bond strength. Nevertheless, extended application times with the 10 s SE mode instead of no-waiting mode advances its short-term dentinal bonding performance [56]. Hence, applying a SE adhesive for shorter times than recommended by the manufacturer might not represent the best use of the adhesive. Dentists normally work without using a stopwatch to precisely time the individual application steps, and they demand a decrease in the uncomfortable treatment time for their patients. Consequently, it is expected that clinicians do not always follow the application times specified by the instructions of the manufacturers [150], and these deviations from the suggested application times could hinder the dentin bond strength of adhesive systems [151], accordingly compromising the longevity of dental resin restorations. As was proved by Hardan et al. [17], a reduced application time weakens both the immediate and aged bond strength of universal adhesives applied to dentin with E&R or SE modes. As a consequence, this modification should not be followed by clinicians.
As materials in close contact with biological tissues, both directly and indirectly, bio- compatibility is one of the utmost serious desires for adhesive systems [152]. It has been established that the constituents of dental adhesives, such as TEGDMA (triethylene glycol dimethacrylate) and HEMA, might diffuse throughout the dentinal tubules and extend into the pulp tissue in concentrations considered toxic to pulp cells [153]. It is worth mentioning that the increase in bond strength observed for some of the described techniques in this review is based on the increase in the degree of conversion of the materials [129]. This increase in the degree of conversion could be related to a reduction in the release of residual monomers, leading to an improvement in the biocompatibility of dental adhesives [19], and this relationship should be addressed in future works.
The present systematic review and meta-analysis distinguished the effect of different application modalities on the bonding ability of adhesive systems to dentin when compared to the application of the adhesive according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The outcomes of this review should be considered with caution as, in clinical conditions, a wet environment could lead to rapid adhesive–dentinal interface degradation. Therefore, future studies should be performed to evaluate the solubility, degree of conversion, shelf-life stability, and polymerization rate of the adhesive applied with different application modalities. Moreover, additional studies on cytotoxicity are recommended in order to analyze the best intensity when using an electric signal for adhesive application. Future reports must be directed, particularly randomized controlled clinical trials, with the drive to acquire the performance of different adhesive systems in the clinical performance of resin-based restorations to the dentinal structure. Additionally, little information exists concerning the influence of these strategies on enamel bond strength. Thus, testing these application modalities on enamel substrates could be important in future investigations. The relationship between the chemical composition of adhesive systems and these modalities are of extreme importance. Therefore, research should be directed towards testing more adhesive systems and more strategies in an attempt to achieve better bonds on tooth substrates. In this review, the best scientific evidence available regarding the dentin bonding efficacy of adhesive systems applied using different application modalities was compiled. To date, the monotonous use of simplified adhesive systems in combination with composite resin to restore dentinal margins is still doubtful and challenging. Consequently, it seems that establishing a durable and stable dentin bond by means of different application modalities could be possible when properly used. Hence, these approaches are crucial for the long-term clinical achievement of restorative treatment to dentin. All in all, essential steps also exist in the application process of various adhesive agents that necessitate recognizing the chemistry of the adhesive being used. Existing application modalities were presented in this study to help clinicians preserve the durability of the bond to the dentin substrate. Nonetheless, no agent or material can overcome poor procedures.

5. Conclusions

Within the limitations of this systematic review of in vitro studies, the findings suggest that the application of adhesive systems using application modalities that are different than the manufacturers’ recommendations may increase the bond strength of resin-based materials to dentin. The application modalities that favored the overall bond strength to dentin were an extended application time, a double-layer application, an application assisted by an electric current, the active application of the adhesive, and the application of a hydrophobic resin layer.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/cells12010190/s1, Table S1: Demographic data of the included studies; Table S2: Risk of bias assessment. References [63,64,65,66,67,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,86,87,88,89,94,95,96,97,98,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111,114,115,116,117,118,119,121,122,124,154,155,156,157] are cited in Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.H., R.B. and C.E.C.-S.; methodology, L.H., R.B. and C.E.C.-S.; software, M.Z., L.H., R.B., Y.H. and M.L.-S.; validation, L.H., R.B., P.M., A.E.Z., C.E.C.-S., M.L.-S., Y.H. and N.K.; formal analysis, L.H., R.B., N.K. and C.E.C.-S.; investigation, P.M., W.D., D.M., D.S., L.H., R.B. and C.E.C.-S.; resources, N.J., D.M., A.E.Z., M.Z., W.D., R.B., L.H., P.M. and M.L.-S.; data curation, L.H., R.B. and C.E.C.-S.; writing—original draft preparation, L.H., R.B., C.E.C.-S. and M.L.-S.; writing—review and editing, R.B., L.H., C.E.C.-S., Y.H., N.K. and M.L.-S.; visualization, N.J., D.M., D.S.; L.H., C.E.C.-S. and R.B.; supervision, L.H. and Y.H.; project administration, L.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

Authors Louis Hardan and Rim Bourgi would like to thank the Saint-Joseph University of Beirut, Lebanon, and the University of Strasbourg for this research. Furthermore, the authors would also like to recognize the University of Hidalgo State, Mexico, and the Medical University of Lodz for supporting this research.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Meerbeek, B.; Peumans, M.; Poitevin, A.; Mine, A.; Van Ende, A.; Neves, A.; De Munck, J. Relationship between Bond-Strength Tests and Clinical Outcomes. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, e100–e121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hardan, L.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Zarow, M.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Bourgi, R.; Jakubowicz, N.; Sokolowski, K.; D’Arcangelo, C. One-Year Clinical Aging of Low Stress Bulk-Fill Flowable Composite in Class II Restorations: A Case Report and Literature Review. Coatings. 2021, 11, 504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Perdigão, J. Current Perspectives on Dental Adhesion:(1) Dentin Adhesion–Not There Yet. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 2020, 56, 190–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Orilisi, G.; Monterubbianesi, R.; Notarstefano, V.; Tosco, V.; Vitiello, F.; Giuliani, G.; Putignano, A.; Orsini, G. New insights from Raman MicroSpectroscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy on the microstructure and chemical composition of vestibular and lingual surfaces in permanent and deciduous human teeth. Spectrochim. Acta Part A Mol. Biomol. Spectrosc. 2021, 260, 119966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Hardan, L.; Daood, U.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Devoto, W.; Zarow, M.; Jakubowicz, N.; Zamarripa-Calderón, J.E.; Radwanski, M.; Orsini, G.; et al. Effect of Collagen Crosslinkers on Dentin Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells 2022, 11, 2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Iliev, G.; Hardan, L.; Kassis, C.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Mancino, D.; Haikel, Y.; Kharouf, N. Shelf Life and Storage Conditions of Universal Adhesives: A Literature Review. Polymers 2021, 13, 2708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Bourgi, R.; Hardan, L.; Rivera-Gonzaga, A.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E. Effect of Warm-Air Stream for Solvent Evaporation on Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of in Vitro Studies. Int. J. Adhes. Adhes. 2021, 105, 102794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hardan, L.; Devoto, W.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Fernández-Barrera, M.Á.; CornejoRíos, E.; Monteiro, P.; Zarow, M.; Jakubowicz, N.; et al. Immediate Dentin Sealing for Adhesive Cementation of Indirect Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Gels 2022, 8, 175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bourgi, R.; Daood, U.; Bijle, M.N.; Fawzy, A.; Ghaleb, M.; Hardan, L. Reinforced Universal Adhesive by Ribose Crosslinker: A Novel Strategy in Adhesive Dentistry. Polymers 2021, 13, 704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hardan, L.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Zarow, M.; Kharouf, N.; Mancino, D.; Villares, C.F.; Skaba, D.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M. The Bond Strength and Anti-bacterial Activity of the Universal Dentin Bonding System: A Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 1230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Yiu, C.K.; Pashley, E.L.; Hiraishi, N.; King, N.M.; Goracci, C.; Ferrari, M.; Carvalho, R.M.; Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R. Solvent and Water Retention in Dental Adhesive Blends after Evaporation. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 6863–6872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Al-Salamony, H.; Naguibb, E.A.; Hamzac, H.S.; Younisd, S.H. The Effect of Warm Air Solvent Evaporation on Microtensile Bond Strength of Two Different Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin (In Vitro Study). SYLWAN 2020, 164, 479–497. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ferreira, J.C.; Pires, P.T.; Azevedo, A.F.; Oliveira, S.A.; Melo, P.R.; Silva, M.J. Influence of Solvents and Composition of Etch-and-Rinse and Self-Etch Adhesive Systems on the Nanoleakage within the Hybrid Layer. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2013, 14, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chimeli, T.B.C.; D’Alpino, P.H.P.; Pereira, P.N.; Hilgert, L.A.; Di Hipolito, V.; Garcia, F.C.P. Effects of Solvent Evaporation on Water Sorption/Solubility and Nanoleakage of Adhesive Systems. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2014, 22, 294–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. El-Askary, F.S.; Van Noort, R. Effect of Air-Drying Pressure and Distance on Microtensile Bond Strength of a Self-Etching Adhesive. J. Adhes. Dent. 2011, 13, 147. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  16. Cadenaro, M.; Maravic, T.; Comba, A.; Mazzoni, A.; Fanfoni, L.; Hilton, T.; Ferracane, J.; Breschi, L. The Role of Polymerization in Adhesive Dentistry. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, e1–e22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hardan, L.; Bourgi, R.; Kharouf, N.; Mancino, D.; Zarow, M.; Jakubowicz, N.; Haikel, Y.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E. Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Polymers 2021, 13, 814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Nagarkar, S.; Theis-Mahon, N.; Perdigão, J. Universal Dental Adhesives: Current Status, Laboratory Testing, and Clinical Performance. J. Biomed. Mater. Res.-Part B Appl. Biomater. 2019, 107, 2121–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Caldas, I.P.; Alves, G.G.; Barbosa, I.B.; Scelza, P.; de Noronha, F.; Scelza, M.Z. In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Dental Adhesives: A Systematic Review. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kunert, M.; Rozpedek-Kaminska, W.; Galita, G.; Sauro, S.; Bourgi, R.; Hardan, L.; Majsterek, I.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M. The Cytotoxicity and Genotoxicity of Bioactive Dental Materials. Cells 2022, 11, 3238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wawrzynkiewicz, A.; Rozpedek-Kaminska, W.; Galita, G.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Lapinska, B.; Sokolowski, J.; Majsterek, I. The Toxicity of Universal Dental Adhesives: An In Vitro Study. Polymers 2021, 13, 2653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Chang, H.-H.; Guo, M.-K.; Kasten, F.H.; Chang, M.-C.; Huang, G.-F.; Wang, Y.-L.; Wang, R.-S.; Jeng, J.-H. Stimulation of Glutathione Depletion, ROS Production and Cell Cycle Arrest of Dental Pulp Cells and Gingival Epithelial Cells by HEMA. Biomaterials 2005, 26, 745–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Gallorini, M.; Cataldi, A.; Di Giacomo, V. HEMA-induced Cytotoxicity: Oxidative Stress, Genotoxicity and Apoptosis. Int. Endod. J. 2014, 47, 813–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hebling, J.; Giro, E.; Costa, C. Human Pulp Response after an Adhesive System Application in Deep Cavities. J. Dent. 1999, 27, 557–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Ouzzani, M.; Hammady, H.; Fedorowicz, Z.; Elmagarmid, A. Rayyan—A Web and Mobile App for Systematic Reviews. Syst. Rev. 2016, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Jones, P.M. COMBINE: Stata Module to Combine n, Mean, and SD from Two Groups According to the Cochrane-Recommended Formula for Meta-Analyses. Available online: https://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s457265.html (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  28. Bansal, S.; Pandit, I.; Srivastava, N.; Gugnani, N. Technique-Sensitivity of Dentin-Bonding Agent Application: The Effect on Shear Bond Strength Using One-Step Self-Etch Adhesive in Primary Molars: An in Vitro Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2010, 28, 183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bertolo, M.V.L.; Guarda, M.B.; Fronza, B.M.; Abuna, G.F.; Vitti, R.P.; Geraldeli, S.; Sinhoreti, M.A.C. Electric Current Effects on Bond Strength, Nanoleakage, Degree of Conversion and Dentinal Infiltration of Adhesive Systems. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2021, 119, 104529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bertschinger, C.; Paul, S.; Lüthy, H.; Schärer, P. Dual Application of Dentin Bonding Agents: Effect on Bond Strength. Am. J. Dent. 1996, 9, 115–119. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sensi, L.G.; Lopes, G.C.; Monteiro Jr, S.; Baratieri, L.N.; Vieira, L. Dentin Bond Strength of Self-Etching Primers/Adhesives. Oper Dent 2005, 30, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  32. Chasqueira, A.F.; Arantes-Oliveira, S.; Portugal, J. Effect of Changes to the Manufacturer Application Techniques on the Shear Bond Strength of Simplified Dental Adhesives. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 2013, 11, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. El-Din, A. Effect of Changing Application Times on Adhesive Systems Bond Strengths. Am. J. Dent. 2002, 15, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  34. Erhardt, M.; Pisani-Proença, J.; Osorio, E.; Aguilera, F.S.; Toledano, M.; Osorio, R. Influence of Laboratory Degradation Methods and Bonding Application Parameters on MicroTBS of Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin. Am. J. Dent. 2011, 24, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  35. Finger, W.J.; Tani, C. Effect of Application Mode on Bonding Performance of Self-Etching Adhesives. Am. J. Dent. 2005, 18, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  36. Yoon, E.-Y.; Lee, N.-Y.; Lee, S.-H. Shear Bond Strength of Giomer and Self-Etching Primer on the Dentin. J. Korean Acad. Pedtatric Dent. 2010, 37, 422–428. [Google Scholar]
  37. Jacobsen, T.; Söderholm, K. Effect of Primer Solvent, Primer Agitation, and Dentin Dryness on Shear Bond Strength to Dentin. Am. J. Dent. 1998, 11, 225–228. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kanca, J. Effect of Primer Dwell Time on Dentin Bond Strength. Gen. Dent. 1998, 46, 608–612. [Google Scholar]
  39. Koike, T.; Hasegawa, T.; Itoh, K.; Yukitani, W.; Yamashita, T.; Wakumoto, S.; Hisamitsu, H. Effect of Multiple Application of a Dentin Adhesive on Contraction Gap Width of a Resin-Based Composite. Am. J. Dent. 2002, 15, 159–163. [Google Scholar]
  40. Lopes, G.; Teixeira, D.; Andrada, M.; Baratieri, L. Microtensile Bond Strength of Resin to Dentin: Effect of Adhesive Application Time. J. Dent. Res. 2003, 82, B190. [Google Scholar]
  41. Miyazaki, M.; Tsubota, K.; Onose, H.; Hinoura, K. Influence of Adhesive Application Duration on Dentin Bond Strength of Single Application Bonding Systems. Oper. Dent. 2002, 27, 278–283. [Google Scholar]
  42. Oliveira, C.; Franca, F.; Basting, R.T.; Turssi, C.P.; do Amaral, F. Effect of Double Coating of One-Step Self-Etching Adhesive on Micromorphology and Microtensile Bond Strength to Sound vs Demineralized Dentin. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2014, 15, 385–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Scheffel, D.; Estrela, R.P.; Pires, P.M.; Mariusso, M.R.; Costa, C.; Hebling, J. Effect of Time between Adhesive Application and Photoactivation on Adhesion and Collagen Exposure. Am. J. Dent. 2014, 27, 330–334. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Settembrini, L.; Gultz, J.; LoPresti, J. Scrub vs Non-Scrub Dentin Bonding Technique: Shear Bond Study. J. Dent. Res. 1997, 76, 420. [Google Scholar]
  45. Yu, L.; Wang, X.; Tian, F.; Gao, X. Effects of Application Methods of Self-Etching Adhesives on Resin-Dentin Bonding. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi Chin. J. Stomatol. 2008, 43, 426–428. [Google Scholar]
  46. Argolo, S.; Mathias, P.; Aguiar, T.; Lima, A.; Santos, S.; Foxton, R.; Cavalcanti, A. Effect of Agitation and Storage Temperature on Water Sorption and Solubility of Adhesive Systems. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 34, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Cavalheiro, A.; Vargas, M.A.; Armstrong, S.R.; Dawson, D.V.; Gratton, D.G. Effect of Incorrect Primer Application on Dentin Permeability. J. Adhes. Dent. 2006, 8, 393–400. [Google Scholar]
  48. Cavalheiro, A.; Cruz, J.; Sousa, B.; Silva, A.; Coito, C.; Lopes, M.; Vargas, M. Dentin Adhesives Application Deviations: Effects on Permeability and Nanoleakage. Dent. Mater. J. 2021, 40, 1160–1168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. de Andrade Silva, S.M.; de Oliveira Carrilho, M.R.; Marquezini Junior, L.; Garcia, F.C.P.; Manso, A.P.; Alves, M.C.; de Carvalho, R.M. Effect of an Additional Hydrophilic versus Hydrophobic Coat on the Quality of Dentinal Sealing Provided by Two-Step Etchand-Rinse Adhesives. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2009, 17, 184–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Deliperi, S.; Bardwell, D.N.; Papathanasiou, A.; Kastali, S.; García-Godoy, F. Microleakage of a Microhybrid Composite Resin Using Three Different Adhesive Placement Techniques. J. Adhes. Dent. 2004, 6, 135–140. [Google Scholar]
  51. Demirci, M.; Tuncer, S.; Tekçe, N.; Erdilek, D.; Uysal, Ö. Influence of Adhesive Application Methods and Rebonding Agent Application on Sealing Effectiveness of All-in-one Self-etching Adhesives. J. Esthet. Restor. Dent. 2013, 25, 326–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Gharizadeh, N.; Kaviani, A.; Nik, S. Effect of Using Electric Current during Dentin Bonding Agent Application on Microleakage under Simulated Pulpal Pressure Condition. Dent. Res. J. 2010, 7, 23. [Google Scholar]
  53. Nagpal, R.; Sharma, P.; Manuja, N.; Tyagi, S.P.; Singh, U.P.; Singh, S.; Singh, P. Influence of Double Application Technique on the Bonding Effectiveness of Self-etch Adhesive Systems. Microsc. Res. Tech. 2015, 78, 489–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Pupo, Y.M.; Michél, M.D.; Gomes, O.M.M.; Lepienski, C.M.; Gomes, J.C. Effect of the Regional Variability of Dentinal Substrate and Modes of Application of Adhesive Systems on the Mechanical Properties of the Adhesive Layer. J. Conserv. Dent. JCD 2012, 15, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Amsler, F.; Peutzfeldt, A.; Lussi, A.; Flury, S. Bond Strength of Resin Composite to Dentin with Different Adhesive Systems: Influence of Relative Humidity and Application Time. J. Adhes. Dent. 2015, 17, 249–256. [Google Scholar]
  56. Huang, X.; Pucci, C.R.; Luo, T.; Breschi, L.; Pashley, D.H.; Niu, L.; Tay, F.R. No-Waiting Dentine Self-Etch Concept—Merit or Hype. J. Dent. 2017, 62, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Burrer, P.; Dang, H.; Par, M.; Attin, T.; Tauböck, T.T. Effect of Over-Etching and Prolonged Application Time of a Universal Adhesive on Dentin Bond Strength. Polymers 2020, 12, 2902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cardoso, P.d.C.; Loguercio, A.D.; Vieira, L.C.C.; Baratieri, L.N.; Reis, A. Effect of Prolonged Application Times on Resin-Dentin Bond Strengths. J. Adhes. Dent. 2005, 7, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  59. Hardan, L.; Orsini, G.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Nicastro, M.; Lazarescu, F.; Filtchev, D.; Cornejo-Ríos, E.; Zamarripa-Calderón, J.E.; Sokolowski, K. Effect of Active Bonding Application after Selective Dentin Etching on the Immediate and Long-Term Bond Strength of Two Universal Adhesives to Dentin. Polymers 2022, 14, 1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Velasquez, L.M.; Sergent, R.S.; Burgess, J.O.; Mercante, D. Effect of Placement Agitation and Placement Time on the Shear Bond Strength of 3 Self-Etching Adhesives. Oper. Dent. 2006, 31, 426–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kerekes-Mathe, B.; Szekely, M.; Csiszer, O.; Kis, M.; Nimigean, V.R.; Nimigean, V.; Dorner, K. Effect of Different Self-Etch Adhesive Application Methods on the Shear Bond Strengths of Composite Resin to Dentin. Romanian Biotechnol. Lett. 2020, 25, 2188–2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Chasqueira, A.F.; Arantes-Oliveira, S.; Portugal, J. Bonding Performance of Simplified Dental Adhesives with Three Application Protocols: An 18-Month in Vitro Study. J. Adhes. Dent. 2020, 22, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  63. Silva, A.; Lima, D.A.N.L.; Souza, G.; Santos, C.; Paulillo, L.A.M.S. Influence of Additional Adhesive Application on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Adhesive Systems. Oper. Dent. 2006, 31, 562–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  64. Muñoz, M.A.; Sezinando, A.; Luque-Martinez, I.; Szesz, A.L.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D.; Bombarda, N.H.; Perdigão, J. Influence of a Hydrophobic Resin Coating on the Bonding Efficacy of Three Universal Adhesives. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 595–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Reis, A.; Zander-Grande, C.; Kossatz, S.; Stanislawczuk, R.; Manso, A.; de Carvalho, R.M.; Loguercio, A.D. Effect of Mode of Application on the Microtensile Bond Strength of a Self-Etch and Etch-and-Rinse Adhesive System. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Sezinando, A.; Luque-Martinez, I.; Muñoz, M.A.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D.; Perdigão, J. Influence of a Hydrophobic Resin Coating on the Immediate and 6-Month Dentin Bonding of Three Universal Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2015, 31, e236–e246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wang, X.; Li, H.; Chen, L.; Wang, Y.; Bai, J.; Wang, D.; Liu, H. Effects of Simplified Ethanol–Wet Bonding and Hydrophobic Coating on Resin–Dentin Bonding Properties. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2021, 35, 913–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Perdigão, J.; Muñoz, M.A.; Sezinando, A.; Luque-Martinez, I.V.; Staichak, R.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D. Immediate Adhesive Properties to Dentin and Enamel of a Universal Adhesive Associated with a Hydrophobic Resin Coat. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Pashaev, D.; Demirci, M.; Tekçe, N.; Tuncer, S.; Baydemir, C. The Effect of Double-Coating and Times on the Immediate and 6-Month Dentin Bonding of Universal Adhesives. Biomed. Mater. Eng. 2017, 28, 169–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Argolo, S.; Oliveira, D.C.; Fontes, C.M.; Lima, A.F.; de Freitas, A.P.; Cavalcanti, A.N. Effect of Increased Dwell Times for Solvent Evaporation on the Bond Strength and Degree of Conversion of an Ethanol-Based Adhesive System. Acta Odontológica Latinoam. 2012, 25, 109–113. [Google Scholar]
  71. Saito, T.; Takamizawa, T.; Ishii, R.; Tsujimoto, A.; Hirokane, E.; Barkmeier, W.; Latta, M.; Miyazaki, M. Influence of Application Time on Dentin Bond Performance in Different Etching Modes of Universal Adhesives. Oper. Dent. 2020, 45, 183–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Bahari, M.; Oskoee, S.S.; Chaharom, M.E.E.; Kahnamoui, M.A.; Gholizadeh, S.; Davoodi, F. Effect of Accelerated Aging and Double Application on the Dentin Bond Strength of Universal Adhesive System. Dent. Res. J. 2021, 18, 25. [Google Scholar]
  73. Carvalho, E.M.; Stanislawczuk, R.; Costa, T.; Moura, S.K.; Loguercio, A.; Bauer, J. Multiple Adhesive Layering Influence on Dentin Bonding and Permeability. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent. 2017, 25, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  74. D’Arcangelo, C.; Vanini, L.; Prosperi, G.D.; Bussolo, G.D.; De Angelis, F.; D’Amario, M.; Caputi, S. The Influence of Adhesive Thickness on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Three Adhesive Systems. J. Adhes. Dent. 2009, 11, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  75. Elkassas, D.; Taher, H.A.; Elsahn, N.; Hafez, R.; El-Badrawy, W. Effect of the Number of Applications of Acetone-Based Adhesives on Microtensile Bond Strength and the Hybrid Layer. Oper. Dent. 2009, 34, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Felemban, N.H.; Ebrahim, M.I. Effect of Adhesive Layers on Microshear Bond Strength of Nanocomposite Resin to Dentin. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2017, 9, e186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Lodovici, E.; Reis, A.; Geraldeli, S.; Ferracane, J.L.; Ballester, R.Y.; Filho, L. Does Adhesive Thickness Affect Resin-Dentin Bond Strength after Thermal/Load Cycling? Oper. Dent. 2009, 34, 58–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Mandava, D.; Ajitha, P.; Narayanan, L.L. Comparative Evaluation of Tensile Bond Strengths of Total-Etch Adhesives and Self-Etch Adhesives with Single and Multiple Consecutive Applications: An in Vitro Study. J. Conserv. Dent. JCD 2009, 12, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Platt, J.; Almeida, J.; Gonzalez-Cabezas, C.; Rhodes, B.; Moore, B. The Effect of Double Adhesive Application on the Shear Bond Strength to Dentin of Compomers Using Three One-Bottle Adhesive Systems. Oper. Dent. 2001, 26, 313–317. [Google Scholar]
  80. Guarda, M.B.; Di Nizo, P.T.; Abuna, G.F.; Catelan, A.; Sinhoreti, M.A.C.; Vitti, R.P. Effect of Electric Current-Assisted Application of Adhesives on Their Bond Strength and Quality. J. Adhes. Dent. 2020, 22, 393–398. [Google Scholar]
  81. Maciel, C.M.; da Rosa Rinhel, M.F.; Abuna, G.F.; Pacheco, R.R.; Baroudi, K.; Sinhoreti, M.A.C.; Vitti, R.P. Resin Composite Adhesion to Dentin Using Different Curing Lights and Adhesive Systems Applied under Electric Current. Clin. Oral Investig. 2021, 25, 5181–5188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Pasquantonio, G.; Tay, F.R.; Mazzoni, A.; Suppa, P.; Ruggeri Jr, A.; Falconi, M.; Di Lenarda, R.; Breschi, L. Electric Device Improves Bonds of Simplified Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2007, 23, 513–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Mazzoni, A.; Visintini, E.; Vita, F.; Pasquantonio, G.; Saboia, V.; Ruggeri Jr, A.; Lenarda, R.D.; Dorigo, E.; Breschi, L. ElectroBond Improves Immediate Dentin Microtensile Bond Strength of Two Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives. J. Adhes. Dent. 2009, 11, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  84. Reis, A.; Pellizzaro, A.; Dal-Bianco, K.; Gomes, O.; Patzlaff, R.; Loguercio, A.D. Impact of Adhesive Application to Wet and Dry Dentin on Long-Term Resin-Dentin Bond Strengths. Oper. Dent. 2007, 32, 380–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  85. Dal-Bianco, K.; Pellizzaro, A.; Patzlaft, R.; de Oliveira Bauer, J.R.; Loguercio, A.D.; Reis, A. Effects of Moisture Degree and Rubbing Action on the Immediate Resin–Dentin Bond Strength. Dent. Mater. 2006, 22, 1150–1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Gokce, K.; Aykor, A.; Ersoy, M.; Ozel, E.; Soyman, M. Effect of Phosphoric Acid Etching and Self-Etching Primer Application Methods on Dentinal Shear Bond Strength. J. Adhes. Dent. 2008, 10, 56–62. [Google Scholar]
  87. Moritake, N.; Takamizawa, T.; Ishii, R.; Tsujimoto, A.; Barkmeier, W.W.; Latta, M.A.; Miyazaki, M. Effect of Active Application on Bond Durability of Universal Adhesives. Oper. Dent. 2019, 44, 188–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Conde, A.; Mainieri, V.; Mota, E.G.; Oshima, H.M. Influence of Ultrasound and Diamond Burs Treatments on Microtensile Bond Strength. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2012, 23, 373. [Google Scholar]
  89. Fawzy, A.; Daood, U.; Matinlinna, J. Potential of High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound in Resin-Dentine Bonding. Dent. Mater. 2019, 35, 979–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ermis, R.B.; Ugurlu, M.; Ahmed, M.H.; Van Meerbeek, B. Universal Adhesives Benefit from an Extra Hydrophobic Adhesive Layer When Light Cured Beforehand. J. Adhes. Dent. 2019, 21, 179–188. [Google Scholar]
  91. Serafim, M.F.D.; Leal, A.M.A.; Bauer, J.; Gomes, I.A.; Carneiro, K.G.K. Effect of an Hydrophobic Layer on a Universal Adhesive. RGO-Rev. Gaúcha Odontol. 2018, 66, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  92. Albuquerque, M.; Pegoraro, M.; Mattei, G.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D. Effect of Double-Application or the Application of a Hydrophobic Layer for Improved Efficacy of One-Step Self-Etch Systems in Enamel and Dentin. Oper. Dent. 2008, 33, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Ito, S.; Tay, F.R.; Hashimoto, M.; Yoshiyama, M.; Saito, T.; Brackett, W.W.; Waller, J.L.; Pashley, D.H. Effects of Multiple Coatings of Two All-in-One Adhesives on Dentin Bonding. J. Adhes. Dent. 2005, 7, 133–141. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  94. Choi, K.; Choi, S.; Park, S.J.; Kim, J. Effect of the Additional Application of a Resin Layer to Single-Step Dentin Adhesives. In Key Engineering Materials; Trans Tech Publications Ltd.: Wollerau, Switzerland, 2008; Volume 361, pp. 865–868. [Google Scholar]
  95. Reis, A.; Albuquerque, M.; Pegoraro, M.; Mattei, G.; de Oliveira Bauer, J.R.; Grande, R.H.M.; Klein-Junior, C.A.; Baumhardt-Neto, R.; Loguercio, A.D. Can the Durability of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives Be Improved by Double Application or by an Extra Layer of Hydrophobic Resin? J. Dent. 2008, 36, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Erhardt, M.C.; Osorio, R.; Pisani-Proenca, J.; Aguilera, F.S.; Osorio, E.; Breschi, L.; Toledano, M. Effect of Double Layering and Prolonged Application Time on MTBS of Water/Ethanol-Based Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin. Oper. Dent. 2009, 34, 571–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Tekçe, N.; Demirci, M.; Tuncer, S.; Uysal, Ö. Effect of Different Application Techniques of All-in-One Adhesives on Microtensile Bond Strength to Sound and Caries-Affected Dentin. J. Adhes. 2015, 91, 245–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Toledano, M.; Proença, J.P.; Erhardt, M.C.G.; Osorio, E.; Aguilera, F.S.; Osorio, R.; Tay, F. Increases in Dentin-Bond Strength If Doubling Application Time of an Acetone-Containing One-Step Adhesive. Oper. Dent. 2007, 32, 133–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Chowdhury, A.; Saikaew, P.; Alam, A.; Sun, J.; Carvalho, R.M.; Sano, H. Effects of Double Application of Contemporary Self-Etch Adhesives on Their Bonding Performance to Dentin with Clinically Relevant Smear Layers. J. Adhes. Dent. 2019, 21, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  100. Pashley, E.L.; Agee, K.A.; Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R. Effects of One versus Two Applications of an Unfilled, All-in-One Adhesive on Dentine Bonding. J. Dent. 2002, 30, 83–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Arisu, H.; Eligüzeloglu, E.; Ütaşli, M.; Ömürlü, H. Effect of Multiple Consecutive Applications of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesive on Microtensile Bond Strength. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2009, 10, 67–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  102. Ali, A.I.; Ismail, H.S.; Garcia-Godoy, F. Effect of Double Layer Application on Bond Durability of Universal Adhesives to Proximal Dentin-Cementum Gingival Margins. Am. J. Dent. 2021, 34, 80–86. [Google Scholar]
  103. Belli, R.; Sartori, N.; Dalmagro Peruchi, L.; Coutinho Guimarães, J.; Cardoso Vieira, L.C.; Narciso Baratieri, L.; Monteiro Jr, S. Effect of Multiple Coats of Ultra-Mild All-in-One Adhesives on Bond Strength to Dentin Covered with Two Different Smear Layer Thicknesses. J. Adhes. Dent. 2011, 13, 507. [Google Scholar]
  104. El Mahallay, S.A. Effect of Double Application of Self-Etch Adhesives on Microtensile Bond Strength to Human Dentin. Int. J. Clin. Dent. 2012, 5, 59–66. [Google Scholar]
  105. Hashimoto, M.; Sano, H.; Yoshida, E.; Hori, M.; Kaga, M.; Oguchi, H.; Pashley, D.H. Effects of Multiple Adhesive Coatings on Dentin Bonding. Oper. Dent.-Univ. Wash. 2004, 29, 416–423. [Google Scholar]
  106. Nakaoki, Y.; Sasakawa, W.; Horiuchi, S.; Nagano, F.; Ikeda, T.; Tanaka, T.; Inoue, S.; Uno, S.; Sano, H.; Sidhu, S.K. Effect of Double-Application of All-in-One Adhesives on Dentin Bonding. J. Dent. 2005, 33, 765–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Taschner, M.; Kümmerling, M.; Lohbauer, U.; Breschi, L.; Petschelt, A.; Frankenberger, R. Effect of Double-Layer Application on Dentin Bond Durability of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives. Oper. Dent. 2014, 39, 416–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Wei, S.; Shimada, Y.; Sadr, A.; Tagami, J. Effect of Double-Application of Three Single-Step Self-Etch Adhesives on Dentin Bonding and Mechanical Properties of Resin-Dentin Area. Oper. Dent. 2009, 34, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Zaki, Z.M.; Nagi, S.M.; Mohamed, A.A.; Zaazou, M.H.; El-Din, I.M. Effect of Different Application Techniques on Microshear Bond Strength of Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2016, 30, 2044–2059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Zecin-Deren, A.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Szczesio-Wlodarczyk, A.; Piwonski, I.; Sokolowski, J.; Lapinska, B. The Influence of Application Protocol of Simplified and Universal Adhesives on the Dentin Bonding Performance. Appl. Sci. 2019, 10, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Zecin-Deren, A.; Sokolowski, J.; Szczesio-Wlodarczyk, A.; Piwonski, I.; Lukomska-Szymanska, M.; Lapinska, B. Multi-Layer Application of Self-Etch and Universal Adhesives and the Effect on Dentin Bond Strength. Molecules 2019, 24, 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Breschi, L.; Mazzoni, A.; Pashley, D.H.; Pasquantonio, G.; Ruggeri, A.; Suppa, P.; Mazzotti, G.; Di Lenarda, R.; Tay, F. Electric-Current-Assisted Application of Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin. J. Dent. Res. 2006, 85, 1092–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Chen, H.; Fu, D.; Yang, H.; Liu, Y.; Huang, Y.; Huang, C. Optimization of Direct Currents to Enhance Dentine Bonding of Simplified One-step Adhesive. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2014, 122, 286–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Amaral, R.; Stanislawczuk, R.; Zander-Grande, C.; Gagler, D.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D. Bond Strength and Quality of the Hybrid Layer of One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives Applied with Agitation on Dentin. Oper. Dent. 2010, 35, 211–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  115. do Amaral, R.C.; Stanislawczuk, R.; Zander-Grande, C.; Michel, M.D.; Reis, A.; Loguercio, A.D. Active Application Improves the Bonding Performance of Self-Etch Adhesives to Dentin. J. Dent. 2009, 37, 82–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Irmak, Ö.; Yaman, B.C.; Orhan, E.O.; Ozer, F.; Blatz, M.B. Effect of Rubbing Force Magnitude on Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives Applied in Self-Etch Mode. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 37, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Jang, J.-H.; Jeon, B.-K.; Mo, S.Y.; Park, M.; Choi, D.; Choi, K.-K.; Kim, D.-S. Effect of Various Agitation Methods on Adhesive Layer Formation of HEMA-Free Universal Dentin Adhesive. Dent. Mater. J. 2018, 38, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Saikaew, P.; Chowdhury, A.; Sattabanasuk, V.; Srimaneekarn, N.; Teanchai, C.; Carvalho, R.M.; Sano, H. Bonding Performance of Self-Etching Adhesives to Bur-Cut Dentin with Active Application Mode. J. Adhes. Dent. 2021, 23, 357–365. [Google Scholar]
  119. Thanatvarakorn, O.; Prasansuttiporn, T.; Takahashi, M.; Thittaweerat, S.; Foxton, R.M.; Ichinose, S.; Tagami, J.; Nakajima, M. Effect of Scrubbing Technique with Mild Self-Etching Adhesives on Dentin Bond Strengths and Nanoleakage Expression. J. Adhes. Dent. 2016, 18, 197–204. [Google Scholar]
  120. Mena-Serrano, A.; Costa, T.; Patzlaff, R.T.; Loguercio, A.D.; Reis, A. Effect of Sonic Application Mode on the Resin-Dentin Bond Strength and Dentin Permeability of Self-Etching Systems. J. Adhes. Dent. 2014, 16, 435–440. [Google Scholar]
  121. Bagis, B.; Turkaslan, S.; Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, L.V. Effect of High Frequency Ultrasonic Agitation on the Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives. J. Adhes. Dent. 2009, 11, 369. [Google Scholar]
  122. Bagis, B.; Turkarslan, S.; Tezvergil-Mutluay, A.; Uctasli, S.; Vallittu, P.K.; Lassila, L.V. Effect of Ultrasonic Agitation on Bond Strength of Self-Etching Adhesives to Dentin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2008, 10, 441–445. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  123. Saikaew, P.; Chowdhury, A.A.; Fukuyama, M.; Kakuda, S.; Carvalho, R.M.; Sano, H. The Effect of Dentine Surface Preparation and Reduced Application Time of Adhesive on Bonding Strength. J. Dent. 2016, 47, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Saikaew, P.; Matsumoto, M.; Chowdhury, A.; Carvalho, R.; Sano, H. Does Shortened Application Time Affect Long-Term Bond Strength of Universal Adhesives to Dentin? Oper. Dent. 2018, 43, 549–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Yesilyurt, C.; Bulucu, B. Bond Strength of Total-Etch and Self-Etch Dentin Adhesive Systems on Peripheral and Central Dentinal Tissue: A Microtensile Bond Strength Test. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2006, 7, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Özer, F.; Ünlü, N.; Sengun, A. Influence of Dentinal Regions on Bond Strengths of Different Adhesive Systems. J. Oral Rehabil. 2003, 30, 659–663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Armstrong, S.; Geraldeli, S.; Maia, R.; Raposo, L.H.A.; Soares, C.J.; Yamagawa, J. Adhesion to Tooth Structure: A Critical Review of “Micro” Bond Strength Test Methods. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, e50–e62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Sirisha, K.; Rambabu, T.; Ravishankar, Y.; Ravikumar, P. Validity of Bond Strength Tests: A Critical Review-Part II. J. Conserv. Dent. JCD 2014, 17, 420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Cadenaro, M.; Antoniolli, F.; Sauro, S.; Tay, F.R.; Di Lenarda, R.; Prati, C.; Biasotto, M.; Contardo, L.; Breschi, L. Degree of Conversion and Permeability of Dental Adhesives. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2005, 113, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Manso, A.P.; Marquezini Jr, L.; Silva, S.M.; Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R.; Carvalho, R.M. Stability of Wet versus Dry Bonding with Different Solvent-Based Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 476–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Breschi, L.; Mazzoni, A.; Ruggeri, A.; Cadenaro, M.; Di Lenarda, R.; Dorigo, E.D.S. Dental Adhesion Review: Aging and Stability of the Bonded Interface. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Loguercio, A.D.; Loeblein, F.; Cherobin, T.; Ogliari, F.; Piva, E.; Reis, A. Effect of Solvent Removal on Adhesive Properties of Simplified Etch-and-Rinse Systems and on Bond Strengths to Dry and Wet Dentin. J. Adhes. Dent. 2009, 11, 213–219. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  133. Carvalho, R.M.; Mendonca, J.; Santiago, S.; Silveira, R.; Garcia, F.; Tay, F.; Pashley, D.H. Effects of HEMA/Solvent Combinations on Bond Strength to Dentin. J. Dent. Res. 2003, 82, 597–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Pashley, D.H.; Ciucchi, B.; Sano, H.; Horner, J.A. Permeability of Dentin to Adhesive Agents. Quintessence Int. 1993, 24, 618–631. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  135. Reis, A.; de Carvalho Cardoso, P.; Vieira, L.C.C.; Baratieri, L.N.; Grande, R.H.M.; Loguercio, A.D. Effect of Prolonged Application Times on the Durability of Resin–Dentin Bonds. Dent. Mater. 2008, 24, 639–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Hayakawa, S.; Nagaoka, N.; Irie, M.; Ogawa, T.; Van Landuyt, K.L.; Osaka, A.; Suzuki, K.; Minagi, S. Nanolayering of Phosphoric Acid Ester Monomer on Enamel and Dentin. Acta Biomater. 2011, 7, 3187–3195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Hashimoto, M.; De Munck, J.; Ito, S.; Sano, H.; Kaga, M.; Oguchi, H.; Van Meerbeek, B.; Pashley, D.H. In Vitro Effect of Nanoleakage Expression on Resin-Dentin Bond Strengths Analyzed by Microtensile Bond Test, SEM/EDX and TEM. Biomaterials 2004, 25, 5565–5574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Frankenberger, R.; Perdigao, J.; Rosa, B.; Lopes, M. ‘No-Bottle’vs ‘Multi-Bottle’Dentin Adhesives—A Microtensile Bond Strength and Morphological Study. Dent. Mater. 2001, 17, 373–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Montes, M.A.J.R.; de Goes, M.F.; da Cunha, M.R.B.; Soares, A.B. A Morphological and Tensile Bond Strength Evaluation of an Unfilled Adhesive with Low-Viscosity Composites and a Filled Adhesive in One and Two Coats. J. Dent. 2001, 29, 435–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Visintini, E.; Mazzoni, A.; Vita, F.; Pasquantonio, G.; Cadenaro, M.; Di Lenarda, R.; Breschi, L. Effects of Thermocycling and Use of ElectroBond on Microtensile Strength and Nanoleakage Using Commercial One-step Self-etch Adhesives. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2008, 116, 564–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Pashley, D.H. Dentin Permeability, Dentin Sensitivity, and Treatment through Tubule Occlusion. J. Endod. 1986, 12, 465–474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Puapichartdumrong, P.; Ikeda, H.; Suda, H. Facilitation of Iontophoretic Drug Delivery through Intact and Caries-affected Dentine. Int. Endod. J. 2003, 36, 674–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Pashley, D.H.; Agee, K.A.; Carvalho, R.M.; Lee, K.-W.; Tay, F.R.; Callison, T.E. Effects of Water and Water-Free Polar Solvents on the Tensile Properties of Demineralized Dentin. Dent. Mater. 2003, 19, 347–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Van Landuyt, K.; De Munck, J.; Snauwaert, J.; Coutinho, E.; Poitevin, A.; Yoshida, Y.; Inoue, S.; Peumans, M.; Suzuki, K.; Lambrechts, P. Monomer-Solvent Phase Separation in One-Step Self-Etch Adhesives. J. Dent. Res. 2005, 84, 183–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Miyazaki, M.; Platt, J.; Onose, H.; Moore, B. Influence of Dentin Primer Application Methods on Dentin Bond Strength. Oper. Dent. 1996, 21, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  146. Reis, A.; Carrilho, M.; Breschi, L.; Loguercio, A. Overview of Clinical Alternatives to Minimize the Degradation of the Resin-Dentin Bonds. Oper. Dent. 2013, 38, E103–E127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  147. Chan, K.M.; Tay, F.R.; King, N.M.; Imazato, S.; Pashley, D.H. Bonding of Mild Self-Etching Primers/Adhesives to Dentin with Thick Smear Layers. Am. J. Dent. 2003, 16, 340–346. [Google Scholar]
  148. Pashley, D.H.; Tay, F.R.; Breschi, L.; Tjäderhane, L.; Carvalho, R.M.; Carrilho, M.; Tezvergil-Mutluay, A. State of the Art Etch-and-Rinse Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  149. Van Meerbeek, B.; Yoshihara, K.; Yoshida, Y.; Mine, A.; De Munck, J.; Van Landuyt, K. State of the Art of Self-Etch Adhesives. Dent. Mater. 2011, 27, 17–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Peutzfeldt, A.; Vigild, M. A Survey of the Use of Dentin-Bonding Systems in Denmark. Dent. Mater. 2001, 17, 211–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Peutzfeldt, A.; Asmussen, E. Adhesive Systems: Effect on Bond Strength of Incorrect Use. J. Adhes. Dent. 2002, 4, 233–242. [Google Scholar]
  152. Ergün, G.; Eğilmez, F.; Üçtaşli, M.; Yilmaz, Ş. Effect of Light Curing Type on Cytotoxicity of Dentine-bonding Agents. Int. Endod. J. 2007, 40, 216–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Hanks, C.T.; Strawn, S.E.; Watahai, J.; Craig, R.G. Cytotoxic Effects of Resin Components on Cultured Mammalian Fibroblasts. J. Dent. Res. 1991, 70, 1450–1455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Asmussen, E.; Peutzfeldt, A. Short-and Long-Term Bonding Efficacy of a Self-Etching, One-Step Adhesive. J. Adhes. Dent. 2003, 5, 41–45. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  155. Karalar, B.; Bayındır, Y.Z. Effects of Adhesive Application Time and Air Blowing Pressure on Dentin Bond Strength of Self-Etch Mode Universal Adhesives. J. Adhes. Sci. Technol. 2022, 36, 287–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. King, N.M.; Tay, F.R.; Pashley, D.H.; Hashimoto, M.; Ito, S.; Brackett, W.W.; García-Godoy, F.; Sunico, M. Conversion of One-Step to Two-Step Self-Etch Adhesives for Improved Efficacy and Extended Application. Am. J. Dent. 2005, 18, 126–134. [Google Scholar]
  157. Tekce, A.U.; Atalay, C.; Dursun, M.N.; Ertan, A.A.; Yazici, A.R. Does Double-Layer Application of a Universal Adhesive Affect Its Bonding to Different Tooth Substrates? Clin. Exp. Health Sci. 2021, 11, 794–800. [Google Scholar]
Cells 12 00190 g001 550
Figure 1. Prisma flowchart according to PRISMA guidelines.
Figure 1. Prisma flowchart according to PRISMA guidelines.
Cells 12 00190 g001
Cells 12 00190 g002 550
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was covered by a hydrophobic resin layer [63,64,65,66,67,68].
Figure 2. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was covered by a hydrophobic resin layer [63,64,65,66,67,68].
Cells 12 00190 g002
Cells 12 00190 g003 550
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied by extending their application time [69,70,71].
Figure 3. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied by extending their application time [69,70,71].
Cells 12 00190 g003
Cells 12 00190 g004 550
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied in two consecutive layers [63,69,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
Figure 4. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied in two consecutive layers [63,69,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79].
Cells 12 00190 g004
Cells 12 00190 g005 550
Figure 5. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied using an electric current [80,81,82,83].
Figure 5. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied using an electric current [80,81,82,83].
Cells 12 00190 g005
Cells 12 00190 g006 550
Figure 6. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was used in an active application [84,85,86,87].
Figure 6. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was used in an active application [84,85,86,87].
Cells 12 00190 g006
Cells 12 00190 g007 550
Figure 7. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an ultrasonic device [88,89].
Figure 7. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an ultrasonic device [88,89].
Cells 12 00190 g007
Cells 12 00190 g008 550
Figure 8. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was covered with a hydrophobic resin layer [64,65,66,90,91,92,93,94,95].
Figure 8. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was covered with a hydrophobic resin layer [64,65,66,90,91,92,93,94,95].
Cells 12 00190 g008
Cells 12 00190 g009 550
Figure 9. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an extended time application [69,71,96,97,98].
Figure 9. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an extended time application [69,71,96,97,98].
Cells 12 00190 g009
Cells 12 00190 g010 550
Figure 10. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied in two consecutive layers [63,69,72,75,77,78,92,93,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111].
Figure 10. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied in two consecutive layers [63,69,72,75,77,78,92,93,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108,109,110,111].
Cells 12 00190 g010
Cells 12 00190 g011 550
Figure 11. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied using an electric current [80,81,112,113].
Figure 11. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied using an electric current [80,81,112,113].
Cells 12 00190 g011
Cells 12 00190 g012 550
Figure 12. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was used in an active application [86,87,109,114,115,116,117,118,119].
Figure 12. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was used in an active application [86,87,109,114,115,116,117,118,119].
Cells 12 00190 g012
Cells 12 00190 g013 550
Figure 13. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an ultrasonic device [117,120,121,122].
Figure 13. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with an ultrasonic device [117,120,121,122].
Cells 12 00190 g013
Cells 12 00190 g014 550
Figure 14. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with reduced application time [123,124].
Figure 14. Forest plot showing the bond strength values when the adhesive was applied with reduced application time [123,124].
Cells 12 00190 g014
Table
Table 1. Search strategy used in PubMed.
Table 1. Search strategy used in PubMed.
#1 Dentin OR Dentine
#2 Bonding OR Bond OR Bonding efficacy OR Dental bonding OR bond strength OR bonding effectiveness OR Bonding performance OR Bond performance OR adhesive #2 properties OR Micro-tensile strength OR microtensile strength OR Microtensile bond strength OR bonding properties OR microshear bond strength OR shear bond strength OR performance
#3 double-application coat OR double-application time OR Bonding application time OR Time factors, working time OR adhesive dental coating OR rubbing OR agitation OR scrubbing OR application mode OR double application OR single application OR Double-layer application OR adhesive layer OR ultrasonic OR agitation OR vibration OR ultrasonics OR application time OR Double application technique OR adhesive dental coating
#1 AND #2 AND #3
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hardan, L.; Bourgi, R.; Cuevas-Suárez, C.E.; Devoto, W.; Zarow, M.; Monteiro, P.; Jakubowicz, N.; Zoghbi, A.E.; Skaba, D.; Mancino, D.; et al. Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells 2023, 12, 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010190

AMA Style

Hardan L, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Devoto W, Zarow M, Monteiro P, Jakubowicz N, Zoghbi AE, Skaba D, Mancino D, et al. Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells. 2023; 12(1):190. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010190

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hardan, Louis, Rim Bourgi, Carlos Enrique Cuevas-Suárez, Walter Devoto, Maciej Zarow, Paulo Monteiro, Natalia Jakubowicz, Amine El Zoghbi, Dariusz Skaba, Davide Mancino, and et al. 2023. "Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" Cells 12, no. 1: 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010190

APA Style

Hardan, L., Bourgi, R., Cuevas-Suárez, C. E., Devoto, W., Zarow, M., Monteiro, P., Jakubowicz, N., Zoghbi, A. E., Skaba, D., Mancino, D., Kharouf, N., Haïkel, Y., & Lukomska-Szymanska, M. (2023). Effect of Different Application Modalities on the Bonding Performance of Adhesive Systems to Dentin: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Cells, 12(1), 190. https://doi.org/10.3390/cells12010190

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop