Сравнение клинических показателей реставраций, выполненных с помощью адгезивных техник тотального травления и самопротравливания

ЦЕЛЬ. Провести систематический обзор для оценки различий между клиническими показателями реставраций, изготовленных с использованием методов тотального и самопротравливания.
МАТЕРИАЛЫ И МЕТОДЫ. Был проведен поиск литературы в базах данных Pubmed, Google Scholar и Cyberleninka. Исследование проводилось в соответствии со стратегией PICO. В обзор были включены статьи за последние 10 лет (2013–2023).
РЕЗУЛЬТАТЫ. После скрининга 1005 статей 52 исследования были подвергнуты экстракции данных. Ни в одном исследовании не было выявлено статистически значимых различий в отношении рецидива кариеса. В 9 из 14 статей ретенция была выше при использовании техники тотального протравливания. Группы тотального протравливания показали лучшую маргинальную адаптацию в 11 из 19 исследований. В 11 из 17 исследований было отмечено наименьшее краевое окрашивание при использовании техники тотального протравливания. Ни в одном из исследований не было выявлено статистически значимых результатов по наличию послеоперационной чувствительности в конце периода наблюдения. Однако в трех исследованиях были получены статистически значимые данные о наличии послеоперационной чувствительности на исходном уровне и через 12 месяцев (1/2 наблюдения) только в группах с тотальным протравливанием.
ВЫВОДЫ. Оба метода демонстрируют эффективную и клинически приемлемое применения для реставрации.

1. Ruschel V.C., Shibata S., Stolf S.C., Chung Y., Baratieri L.N., Heymann H.O., Walter R. Eighteen-month clinical study of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2018;43(3):241–249. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-320-C

2. de Paris Matos T., Perdigão J., de Paula E., Coppla F., Hass V., Scheffer R.F., Reis A., Loguercio A.D. Five-year clinical evaluation of a universal adhesive: A randomized double-blind trial. Dent Mater. 2020;36(11):1474–1485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2020.08.007

3. Çakır N.N., Demirbuga S. The effect of five different universal adhesives on the clinical success of class I restorations: 24-month clinical follow-up. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(6):2767–2776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2708-3

4. de Albuquerque E.G., Warol F., Calazans F.S., Poubel L.A., Marins S.S., Matos T., de Souza J.J., Reis A., de Oliveira Barceleiro M., Loguercio A.D. A new dual-cure universal simplified adhesive: 18-month randomized multicenter clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2020;45(5):E255–E270. https:// doi.org/10.2341/19-144-C

5. Loguercio A.D., de Paula E.A., Hass V., Luque-Martinez I., Reis A., Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 36-Month randomized doubleblind clinical trial. J Dent. 2015;43:1083–1092. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.005

6. Oz F.D., Ergin E., Canatan S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of different universal adhesives in etchand-rinse, selective etching and self-etch application modes in NCCL – a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180358. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0358

7. Follak A.C., Ilha B.D., Oling J., Savian T., Rocha R.O., Soares F.Z.M. Clinical behavior of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2021;113:103747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103747

8. Vinagre A., Ramos J., Marques F., Chambino A., Messias A., Mata A. Randomized clinical trial of five adhesive systems in occlusal restorations: One-year results. Dent Mater J. 2020;39(3):397–406. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-011

9. Peumans M., Vandormael S., Heeren A., De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B. Six-year clinical performance of a 2-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2021;23(3):201–215. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1367831

10. Oz F.D., Dursun M.N., Ergin E. Clinical performance of a “no wait” universal adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions: a two-year randomized controlled clinical trial. J Adhes Dent. 2022;24(1):313–323. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b3240675

11. Yazici A.R., Uslu Tekce A., Kutuk Z.B. Comparative evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive in class II bulk-fill restorations: A 48-month randomized controlled trial. J Dent. 2022;117:103921. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2021.103921

12. Kemaloğlu H., Atalayin Ozkaya C., Ergucu Z., Onal B. Follow-up of flowable resin composites performed with a universal adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized, controlled 24-month clinical trial. Am J Dent. 2020;33(1):39–42. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32056414/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

13. Perdigão J., Ceballos L., Giráldez I., Baracco B., Fuentes M.V. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02940-x

14. Carvalho A.A., Leite M.M., Zago J.K.M., Nunes C.A.B.C.M., Barata T.J.E., Freitas G.C., Torres É.M., Lopes L.G. Influence of different application protocols of universal adhesive system on the clinical behavior of Class I and II restorations of composite resin – a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-019-0913-3

15. Fuentes M.V., Perdigão J., Baracco B., Giráldez I., Ceballos L. Effect of an additional bonding resin on the 5-year performance of a universal adhesive: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(2):837–848. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04613-8

16. de Almeida R.A.M., Lima S.N.L., Nassif M.V., Mattos N.H.R., de Matos T.P., de Jesus Tavarez R.R., Cardenas A.F.M., Bandeca M.C., Loguercio A.D. Eighteenmonth clinical evaluation of a new universal adhesive applied in the “no-waiting” technique: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(1):151–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04703-7

17. Atalay C., Ozgunaltay G., Yazici A.R. Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of different adhesive strategies of a universal adhesive. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24:1569–1578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03052-2

18. Zanatta R.F., Silva T.M., Esper M.A.L.R., Bresciani E., Gonçalves S.E.P., Caneppele T.M.F. Bonding performance of simplified adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions at 2-year follow-up: A double-blind randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2019;44:476–487. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-049-C

19. Haak R., Hähnel M., Schneider H., Rosolowski M., Park K.J., Ziebolz D., Häfer M. Clinical and OCT outcomes of a universal adhesive in a randomized clinical trial after 12 months. J Dent. 2019;90:103200. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.103200

20. Peumans M., Wouters L., De Munck J., Van Meerbeek B., Van Landuyt K. Nine-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. J Adhes Dent. 2018;20(3):195–203. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a40630

21. Barceleiro M.O., Lopes L.S., Tardem C., Calazans F.S., Matos T.P., Reis A., Calixto A.L., Loguercio A.D. Thirtysix-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with an MDP-free universal adhesive system using different adhesive protocols: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(6):4337–4350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04397-x

22. Lawson N.C., Robles A., Fu C.C., Lin C.P., Sawlani K., Burgess J.O. Two-year clinical trial of a universal adhesive in total-etch and self-etch mode in noncarious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43:1229–1234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.07.009

23. Perdigão J., Kose C., Mena-Serrano A.P., De Paula E.A., Tay L.Y., Reis A., et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 18-month clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2014;39:113–127. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-045-C

24. Burgess J.O., Sadid-Zadeh R., Cakir D., Ramp L.C. Clinical evaluation of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems in noncarious cervical lesions: a two-year report. Oper Dent. 2013;38(5):477–487. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-355-CR

25. Moosavi H., Kimyai S., Forghani M., Khodadadi R. The clinical effectiveness of various adhesive systems: an 18-month evaluation. Oper Dent. 2013;38(2):134–41. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-110-CR

26. Van Landuyt K.L., De Munck J., Ermis R.B., Peumans M., Van Meerbeek B. Five-year clinical performance of a HEMA-free one-step self-etch adhesive in noncarious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(4):1045–1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1061-9

27. van Dijken J.W., Pallesen U. Eight-year randomized clinical evaluation of Class II nanohybrid resin composite restorations bonded with a one-step self-etch or a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(6):1371–1379. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-014-1345-8

28. de Oliveira F.G., Machado L.S., Sundfeld-Neto D., Giannini M., Briso A.L., Dos Santos P.H., Sundefeld M.L., Sundfeld R.H. Two-year clinical evaluation of a nanofilled etch-and-rinse and a self-etch adhesive system containing MDPB and fluoride in non-carious cervical lesions. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017;38(3):e1–e4. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28257217/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

29. van Dijken J.W. A randomized controlled 5-year prospective study of two HEMA-free adhesives, a 1-step self etching and a 3-step etch-and-rinse, in non-carious cervical lesions. Dent Mater. 2013;29(11):e271–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.08.203

30. Mena-Serrano A., Kose C., De Paula E.A., Tay L.Y., Reis A., Loguercio A.D., Perdigão J. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month clinical evaluation. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(1):55–69. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12005

31. Baracco B., Perdigão J., Cabrera E., Ceballos L. Two-year clinical performance of a low-shrinkage composite in posterior restorations. Oper Dent. 2013;38(6):591–600. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-364-C

32. Delbons F.B., Perdigão J., Araujo E., Melo Freire C.A., Caldas D.D., Cardoso J.L., Pagani M., Borges G.A., Lima R.B. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in posterior restorations-18-month results. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12135

33. Lopes L.S., Calazans F.S., Hidalgo R., Buitrago L.L., Gutierrez F., Reis A., Loguercio A.D., Barceleiro M.O. Six-month follow-up of cervical composite restorations placed with a new universal adhesive system: a randomized clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2016;41(5):465–480. https://doi.org/10.2341/15-309-C

34. Paula E.A., Tay L.Y., Kose C., Mena-Serrano A., Reis A., Perdigão J., Loguercio A.D. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies in cervical lesions: 12-month results. Int J Esthet Dent. 2015;10(1):122–145. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25625130/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

35. Yarovaya S.P., Popov R.V., Ganich I.G. Clinical evaluation of adhesive systems of total etching and self-etching. Ukrainian Dental Almanac. 2013;(4). (In Ukrain.)

36. Daudt E., Lopes G.C., Vieira L.C. Does operatory field isolation influence the performance of direct adhesive restorations? J Adhes Dent. 2013;15(1):27–32. https:// doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a28194

37. Häfer M., Jentsch H., Haak R., Schneider H. A three-year clinical evaluation of a one-step self-etch and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive in non-carious cervical lesions. J Dent. 2015;43(3):350–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.009

38. Yaman B.C., Doğruer I., Gümüştaş B., Efes B.G. Threeyear randomized clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage silorane-based resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(4):1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-1079-z

39. Tuncer D., Yazici A.R., Özgünaltay G., Dayangac B. Clinical evaluation of different adhesives used in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: 24-month results. Aust Dent J. 2013;58(1):94–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/adj.12028

40. Walter R., Swift E.J. Jr, Boushell L.W., Reymann H., Wilder A.D. Jr, Sturdevan J. et al. Clinical evaluation of dental adhesives of different bonding strategies. In: IADR/ AADR/CADR General Session and Exhibition, March 2013. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266784666_Clinical_evaluation_of_dental_adhesives_of_different_bonding_strategies (accessed: 23.01.2024).

41. de Araújo J.F., de Barros T.A., Braga E.M.F., Loretto S.C., de Almeida Rodrigues Silva e Souza P., Honorato Silva e Souza Jr M. One-year evaluation of a simplified ethanol-wet bonding technique: a randomized clinical trial. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(3):267–272. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302128

42. Blunck U., Steidten J., Sandberg N., Zaslansky P., Twoyear clinical performance of one-step self-etch adhesive in cervical restorations. In: IADR/AADR/CADR General Session and Exhibition, March 2013. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266806595_Two-year_Clinical_Performance_of_One-step_Selfetch_Adhesives_in_Cervical_Restorations (accessed: 23.01.2024).

43. de Oliveira F.G. Análise clínica e clínica/digital de restaurações de lesões cervicais não cariosas: efeitos dos sistemas adesivos e tempos de análise. Tese (doutorado) – Universidade Estadual Paulista Júlio de Mesquita Filho, Faculdade de Odontologia de Araçatuba; 2013. 80 f.

44. Tian F.C., Wang X.Y., Gao X.J. Clinical evaluation of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and a one-step selfetch adhesive in non-carious cervical lesion. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2014;46(1):58–61. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24535349/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

45. Albuquerque E., Santana F., Calazans F., Poubel L., Marins S., Paris T. et al. A new universal simplified adhesive: 6-month randomized multi-center clinical trial. Rev Bras Odontol. 2017;74(4):251. https://doi.org/10.18363/rbo.v74n4.p.251

46. Islatince Özkubat G., Yaman B.C., Tepe H., Irmak Ö. Clinical performance of non-carious cervical lesions restored with a universal adhesive assessed according to the FDI criteria. Cumhur Dent J. 2018;21:357–370. https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.467923

47. Ruschel V.C., Stolf S.C., Shibata S., Chung Y., Boushell L.W., Baratieri L.N., Walter R. Three-year clinical evaluation of universal adhesives in non-carious cervical lesions. Am J Dent. 2019;32(5):223–228. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31675189/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

48. Kemaloğlu H., Atalayin Ozkaya C., Ergucu Z., Onal B. Follow-up of flowable resin composites performed with a universal adhesive system in non-carious cervical lesions: A randomized, controlled 24-month clinical trial. Am J Dent. 2020;33(1):39–42. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32056414/ (accessed: 23.01.2024).

49. Haak R., Schmidt P., Park K.J., Häfer M., Krause F., Ziebolz D., Schneider H. OCT for early quality evaluation of tooth-composite bond in clinical trials. J Dent. 2018;76:46–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.007

50. Cruz J., Silva A.L., Eira R., Coito C., Lopes M., Cavalheiro A. 6-month clinical performance of a universal adhesive on non-carious cervical lesions: self-etch and etch-and-rinse techniques. Rev Port Estomatol Cir Maxilofac. 2020;61(3):97–105. https://doi.org/10.24873/j.rpemd.2020.11.713

51. Ruschel V.C., Stolf S.C., da Luz Baratieri C., Chung Y., Boushell L.W., Baratieri L.N, Walter R. Five-year clinical evaluation of universal adhesives in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2023;48(4):364–372. https://doi.org/10.2341/21-132-C

52. Cruz J., Silva A.L., Eira R., Coito C., Sousa B.R., Lopes M.M., Cavalheiro A. 24-Month clinical performance of a universal adhesive on non-carious cervical lesions: Self-etch and etch-and-rinse techniques. J Adhes Dent. 2021;23(5):379–387. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2000173