Cargando…

Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization

The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wierichs, R. J., Müller, T., Campus, G., Carvalho, T. S., Niemeyer, S. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9616813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36307461
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22132-0
_version_ 1784820722108989440
author Wierichs, R. J.
Müller, T.
Campus, G.
Carvalho, T. S.
Niemeyer, S. H.
author_facet Wierichs, R. J.
Müller, T.
Campus, G.
Carvalho, T. S.
Niemeyer, S. H.
author_sort Wierichs, R. J.
collection PubMed
description The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) were screened for studies from 1946 to 2022. Cross-referencing was used to identify further articles. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. Languages were not restricted. The type of outcome was not restricted, and their mean differences (MD) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Risk of Bias was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 171 eligible studies, 34 were selected for full-text analysis evaluating 69 different materials, and 17 studies—still evaluating 36 different materials—were included (3 in situ and 14 in vitro). Ten studies evaluated desensitizers; 8 adhesives; and 1 infiltration. Meta-analyses were possible for all 17 studies. Meta-analyses revealed that lesion depth after no treatment was significantly higher than after the application of single-step adhesives (MD[(95%)CI] = − 49.82[− 69.34; − 30.30]) and multi-step adhesives (MD[(95%)CI]=–60.09 [–92.65, –27.54]). No significant differences in the lesion depth increase between single- and multi-step adhesives could be observed (MD[(95%)CI]=30.13 [–21.14, 81.39]). Furthermore, compared to no treatment the increase of the lesion depth was significantly hampered using desensitizers (MD[(95%)CI] = − 38.02[− 51.74; − 24.31]). Furthermore, the included studies presented unclear or high risk. A physical diffusion barrier can significantly hamper the increase of lesion depth under cariogenic conditions. Furthermore, multi-step adhesives seem not to be more effective than single-step adhesives. However, this conclusion is based on only few in vitro and in situ studies.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9616813
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96168132022-10-30 Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization Wierichs, R. J. Müller, T. Campus, G. Carvalho, T. S. Niemeyer, S. H. Sci Rep Article The present review systematically analyzed in vitro and in situ studies investigating physical diffusion barriers (sealants, desensitizer or adhesives) to prevent the development or the progression of root (dentin) demineralization. Three electronic databases (PubMed-Medline, CENTRAL, Ovid-EMBASE) were screened for studies from 1946 to 2022. Cross-referencing was used to identify further articles. Article selection and data abstraction were done in duplicate. Languages were not restricted. The type of outcome was not restricted, and their mean differences (MD) were calculated using fixed- or random-effects models. Risk of Bias was graded using Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. From 171 eligible studies, 34 were selected for full-text analysis evaluating 69 different materials, and 17 studies—still evaluating 36 different materials—were included (3 in situ and 14 in vitro). Ten studies evaluated desensitizers; 8 adhesives; and 1 infiltration. Meta-analyses were possible for all 17 studies. Meta-analyses revealed that lesion depth after no treatment was significantly higher than after the application of single-step adhesives (MD[(95%)CI] = − 49.82[− 69.34; − 30.30]) and multi-step adhesives (MD[(95%)CI]=–60.09 [–92.65, –27.54]). No significant differences in the lesion depth increase between single- and multi-step adhesives could be observed (MD[(95%)CI]=30.13 [–21.14, 81.39]). Furthermore, compared to no treatment the increase of the lesion depth was significantly hampered using desensitizers (MD[(95%)CI] = − 38.02[− 51.74; − 24.31]). Furthermore, the included studies presented unclear or high risk. A physical diffusion barrier can significantly hamper the increase of lesion depth under cariogenic conditions. Furthermore, multi-step adhesives seem not to be more effective than single-step adhesives. However, this conclusion is based on only few in vitro and in situ studies. Nature Publishing Group UK 2022-10-28 /pmc/articles/PMC9616813/ /pubmed/36307461 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22132-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Wierichs, R. J.
Müller, T.
Campus, G.
Carvalho, T. S.
Niemeyer, S. H.
Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title_full Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title_fullStr Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title_full_unstemmed Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title_short Systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
title_sort systematic review and meta-analysis on physical barriers to prevent root dentin demineralization
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9616813/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36307461
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22132-0
work_keys_str_mv AT wierichsrj systematicreviewandmetaanalysisonphysicalbarrierstopreventrootdentindemineralization
AT mullert systematicreviewandmetaanalysisonphysicalbarrierstopreventrootdentindemineralization
AT campusg systematicreviewandmetaanalysisonphysicalbarrierstopreventrootdentindemineralization
AT carvalhots systematicreviewandmetaanalysisonphysicalbarrierstopreventrootdentindemineralization
AT niemeyersh systematicreviewandmetaanalysisonphysicalbarrierstopreventrootdentindemineralization