Fabiana Dias Simas Dreweck1,2, Adrieli Burey1, Marcelo de Oliveira Dreweck3, Alessandro D Loguercio1, Alessandra Reis4. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Rua Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748 Bloco M, Sala 64-A, Uvaranas, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, 84030-900, Brazil. 2. Campos Gerais Higher Education Center - CESCAGE, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. 3. Medicine Department, State University of Ponta Grossa, Uvaranas, Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Rua Carlos Cavalcanti, 4748 Bloco M, Sala 64-A, Uvaranas, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, 84030-900, Brazil. reis_ale@hotmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess which adhesive strategy is most clinically effective in treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Studies were identified by a systematic search of electronic databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Scopus, and Web of Science without restrictions on publication year or language. The grey literature was also consulted. Only randomized clinical trials that compared different adhesive strategies in NCCLs in adult patients were included. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model was used to compare adhesive strategies (3ER, 2ER, 2SE, and 1SE) at different follow-up times. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated for each strategy. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 5058 studies were identified, 66 of which met the eligibility criteria and of these 5 were judged "low" risk of bias and 57 were meta-analyzed. We did not observe significant differences in the NMA analysis for any two pairs of adhesives, except for the shortest follow-up for 2ER vs 3ER. The material 2SE ranked highest, although it differed only slightly from the other bonding strategies. CONCLUSIONS: No bonding strategy is better than the others. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Adhesive efficacy cannot be characterized by its bonding strategy.
OBJECTIVES: A network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed to assess which adhesive strategy is most clinically effective in treating non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Studies were identified by a systematic search of electronic databases including MEDLINE via PubMed, Brazilian Library in Dentistry (BBO), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database (LILACS), Scopus, and Web of Science without restrictions on publication year or language. The grey literature was also consulted. Only randomized clinical trials that compared different adhesive strategies in NCCLs in adult patients were included. The risk of bias was evaluated by using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. A random-effects Bayesian mixed treatment comparison model was used to compare adhesive strategies (3ER, 2ER, 2SE, and 1SE) at different follow-up times. The surface under cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was estimated for each strategy. Heterogeneity was assessed by using the Cochran Q test and I2 statistics. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 5058 studies were identified, 66 of which met the eligibility criteria and of these 5 were judged "low" risk of bias and 57 were meta-analyzed. We did not observe significant differences in the NMA analysis for any two pairs of adhesives, except for the shortest follow-up for 2ER vs 3ER. The material 2SE ranked highest, although it differed only slightly from the other bonding strategies. CONCLUSIONS: No bonding strategy is better than the others. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Adhesive efficacy cannot be characterized by its bonding strategy.
Authors: Brian Hutton; Georgia Salanti; Deborah M Caldwell; Anna Chaimani; Christopher H Schmid; Chris Cameron; John P A Ioannidis; Sharon Straus; Kristian Thorlund; Jeroen P Jansen; Cynthia Mulrow; Ferrán Catalá-López; Peter C Gøtzsche; Kay Dickersin; Isabelle Boutron; Douglas G Altman; David Moher Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2015-06-02 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Roberta Pimentel de Oliveira; Brennda Lucy de Paula; Mara Eliane Ribeiro; Eliane Alves; Hilton Túlio Costi; Cecy Silva Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2022-06-10