RESUMO
As cerâmicas vítreas apresentam uma combinação de propriedades estética e mecânica satisfatórias, as quais viabilizam o seu uso na maioria das restaurações indiretas. No entanto, estes materiais estão sujeitos a falhas em sua estrutura, e podem lascar, trincar ou fraturar. O procedimento de reparo parece ser um recurso importante para a manutenção e aumento da sobrevida dessas restaurações na cavidade bucal. Porém, a falta de consenso no protocolo clínico ainda gera bastante confusão entre os profissionais. Portanto, objetivou-se avaliar, por meio de uma revisão sistemática e meta-análise, a influência dos diferentes tratamentos de superfície empregados no reparo de cerâmicas vítreas com resinas compostas. Buscas computadorizadas foram realizadas nas bases de dados PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science e Embase. Foi utilizada uma combinação de termos MeSH e termos livres com operadores booleanos OR e AND, seguindo as regras de sintaxe de cada base de dados. Uma busca complementar no Google Scholar e no OpenGrey também foi realizada, e não houve restrição de idioma ou ano de publicação. Após a identificação dos registros em cada base de dados, os resultados de busca foram exportados para o Rayyan QCRI. As etapas de identificação, seleção, elegibilidade e inclusão dos estudos foram realizadas respeitando-se o PRISMA statement. A qualidade metodológica dos estudos incluídos foi avaliada seguindo as Diretrizes da Ferramenta de Risco de Viés (OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies). Os resultados das meta-análises foram fornecidos pela diferença das médias com intervalo de confiança de 95%. A heterogeneidade estatística foi avaliada pelo I2, e o modelo randômico foi utilizado. A busca identificou 5.037 estudos e 165 foram avaliados quanto à elegibilidade. Finalmente, 123 estudos in vitro foram incluídos na revisão sistemática e 48 na meta-análise. Considerando as diferentes cerâmicas vítreas, os diferentes testes de resistência de união utilizados, e o envelhecimento ou não dos corpos de prova, 37 meta-análises evidenciaram o efeito de protocolos de reparo, incluindo apenas a aplicação de um sistema adesivo; a utilização do silano associado ao adesivo, precedidos ou não do ácido fluorídrico (AF), abrasão a ar (AA) com partículas de óxido de alumínio, jateamento (J) com partículas de trióxido de alumínio revestidas com sílica, ponta diamantada (PD) ou irradiação a laser (IL). Para as cerâmicas feldspáticas, AF, AA, J ou PD melhoram a retenção micromecânica do reparo; a aplicação do silano é essencial para a superfície condicionada com AF, porém o uso do adesivo é facultativo quando o silano é aplicado. Para as cerâmicas reforçadas com leucita ou com dissilicato de lítio, os resultados foram insuficientes para sugerir outro tratamento além do AF, seguido da aplicação de silano e adesivo.
Glass-ceramics have a combination of satisfactory aesthetic and mechanical properties, which possibility their indication for most indirect restorations. However, these materials are subject to structural failures, and can chip, crack or fracture. The repair procedures seem to be an important resource to keep and increase the restorations survival in the oral cavity. However, the lack of consensus on the clinical repair protocol still generates a lot of confusion among professionals. Therefore, the objective was to evaluate, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, the influence of different treatments used in glass-ceramics surfaces to repair with composite resins. Computerized searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Embase databases. A combination of MeSH and free terms with the Boolean operators OR and AND, following the syntax rules of each database was used. A complementary search on Google Scholar and OpenGrey was also performed, and there were no restrictions on language or publication year. After identifying the records in each database, the search results were exported to the Rayyan QCRI. The identification, selection, eligibility and inclusion steps of studies were carried out respecting the PRISMA statement. The included studies methodological quality was assessed following the OHAT Risk of Bias Rating Tool for Human and Animal Studies. The results of meta-analysis were provided in mean difference and 95% confidence interval. Statistical heterogeneity was assessed with the I2, and the random effect model was used. The search identified 5037 studies and 165 were assessed for eligibility. Finally, 123 in vitro studies were included in the systematic review and 48 in the meta-analysis. Considering different glass-ceramics, bond strength tests, and the specimens aging or not, 37 meta-analyses showed the effect of repair protocols including only an adhesive system application; silane plus adhesive system alone or preceded by hydrofluoric acid (HF), air abrasion (AA) with aluminum oxide particles, sandblasting (SB) with aluminum trioxide particles coated with silica, diamond bur (DB) or laser irradiation (LI). For feldspathic ceramics, HF acid, AA, SB, or DB improve repair micromechanical retention; applying silane is essential to HF conditioned surface, but adhesive is facultative when silane is applied. For leucite and lithium disilicate- reinforced ceramics, the results were insufficient to suggest another treatment besides HF acid plus silane and adhesive application.
Assuntos
Cerâmica , Resinas Compostas , Reparação de Restauração Dentária , Revisão SistemáticaRESUMO
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: A consensus on whether to use an adhesive layer on glass-ceramics after etching with hydrofluoric acid and applying a silane-coupling agent is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether adhesive layer application after etching and silanization influences the bond strength values of glass-ceramics to resin-based materials. MATERIAL AND METHODS: PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases were searched to select in vitro studies comparing bond strength values of etched and silanized glass-ceramics bonded with or without an adhesive layer. No publication year or language restriction was applied. Data sets were extracted, and the mean differences were applied by using the Rev Man 5.3 program. The association between bond strength (shear/microshear or tensile/microtensile) and an adhesive layer application on nonaged and aged specimens was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 4727 potentially eligible studies, 54 were selected for full-text analysis, and 15 were included for qualitative synthesis; of these, 14 were used in the meta-analysis. A total of 2 meta-analyses were performed with heterogeneity varying from high to moderate among study specimens. For shear/microshear studies, both nonaged (MD, 1.36 [95% CI: -0.18, 2.90], P=.080, I2=79%) and aged (MD, 0.89 [95% CI: -1.04, 2.82], P=.370, I2=80%) specimens presented no statistically significant difference between groups bonded with or without an adhesive layer application. For microtensile studies, both nonaged (MD, -1.49 [95% CI: -2.48, -0.50], P=.003, I2=88%) and aged (MD, -3.87 [95% CI: -5.63, -2.11], P<.001, I2=97%) specimens exhibited higher values without an adhesive application. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the bond strength test used, an adhesive layer application did not improve the bond strength of etched and silanized glass-ceramics to resin-based materials. The influence of this adhesive layer application should be evaluated under clinical conditions.
