Table 5.
Cochrane Library research, 2 January 2019.
| Article | Tested Adhesion Techniques | Results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yang et al., 2018 [10] | Different kinds of cement (RMGIC, self-adhesive, MDP-free). Primers and universal adhesives with 10-MDP. Preliminary APA preliminary. | RMGIC get worse adhesion results. Better bond strength for MDP primer (or adhesive) with traditional composite cement, than MDP cement alone. |
| 2 | Thammajaruk et al., 2019 [11] | Ceramic coating technique (DCM hot bond coating) vs. APA. | APA gives better adhesion and more stable long-term results. |
| 3 | Shimizu et al., 2018 [12] | Mechanical pre-treatment (none, APA, plasma treatment) and chemical pre-treatment (none, 10-MDP primer). | APA improves the bonding strength and the pre-treatment with MDP primer resulted in better adhesion. |
| 4 | Piest et al., 2018. [13] | Efficacy of plasma treatment for contaminated zirconia (saliva and silicone). | Plasma treatment is expensive and not efficacious, especially for silicone contamination. |
| 5 | Yang et al., 2018 [14] | Comparison between two kinds of adhesion protocol: one involves APA followed by MDP- free composite cement, others that involve APA followed by MDP containing product (primer or adhesive or cement). | Product containing 10-MDP (primers, adhesives, and cement) improve zirconia adhesion in comparison APA with MDP-free composite cement. |
| 6 | Moura et al., 2018 [15] | Comparison of three adhesion techniques: -APA+ MDP- composite cement -MDP-primer + MDP-free composite cement (no APA) -APA+ primer with functional monomer + MDP-free composite cement. | The adhesion protocol that involves APA followed the use of MDP-composite cement has worse results. |
| 7 | Araùjo et al., 2018 [16] | Compare the effectiveness of an MDP-adhesive as a substitute for TBC adhesion protocol. | Mechanical pre-treatment included in the TBC technique is necessary for an adequate adhesion. |
| 8 | Grasel et al., 2018 [17] | Evaluation of the effectiveness of mechanical pre-treatment (APA). Comparison of different adhesion systems (universal primer and composite cement) after APA. | Mechanical pre-treatment is necessary for improving adhesion. No substantial differences between the adhesion systems. |
| 9 | Dos Santos et al., 2018 [18] | Effect of incorporation of TiO2 nanotubes in a polycrystalline zirconia on bond strength. | The technique tested has no significant effect. |
| 0 | Dal Piva et al., 2018 [19] | Efficacy of a heat-treatment after TBC protocol. | Heat treatment is not valid in improving adhesion. |
| 1 | Yoshida et al., 2018 [20] | Cleaning methods for saliva contaminated zirconia (Ivoclean, ADG, etching gel, APA). | ADG and APA are effective cleaning methods on the alumina blasted zirconia. |
| 2 | Wille et al., 2017 [21] | Effectiveness comparison of “phosphoric acid esters”-based primer and a self-etching primer applied on sandblasted zirconia. Cementation with composite cement. | Phosphoric acid esters primer gets better results. |
| 3 | Xie et al., 2017 [22] | Different zirconia treatments (APA Al2O3, 40% HF 30 min, 40% HF 10 min in US bath) and different 10-MDP primers. Composite cement. | No differences emerge on the type of primer, nor on the way the acid is applied. Treatment with HF achieves results comparable to sandblasting. |
| 4 | Pitta et al., 2017 [23] | The study evaluates the effect of saliva contamination on the effectiveness of the adhesive system. | Some adhesive systems do not appear to be affected by saliva contamination. |
| 5 | Yagawa et al., 2018 [24] | Comparison of some primers containing different adhesive monomers. Cementation with self-curing or dual composite. | Dual cement ensures better adhesion. Major SBS for samples treated with 10-MDP primer. |
| 6 | Noda et al., 2017 [25] | Comparison of different primers with functional monomers. | Primer containing 10-MDP exhibits higher bond strength than MAC-10 primer. |
| 7 | Chuang et al., 2017 [26] | Comparison of silane, 10-MDP, or both MDP and silane primers on sandblasted samples. | 10-MDP primers get better SBS. |
| 8 | Elsayed et al., 2017 [27] | Sandblasted samples, subjected to the application of different primer/composite cement adhesive systems. | -APA + Monobond Plus (silane/adhesive monomers) + Variolink Esthetic DC. -APA + All Bond universal (10-MDP) + Duo Link Universal. |
| 9 | Galvão Ribeiro et al., 2018 [28] | Comparison between APA and TBC treatment followed by application of silane or silane/10-MDP primers. Self-adhesive composite. | TBC + silane/10-MDP primer + self-adhesive composite. |
| 0 | Chen C et al., 2017 [29] | Effect of storage in aqueous solutions (acid, basic, or neutral) on adhesion. Sandblasted samples, treated with two different MDP primers, cemented with a composite. | Values of SBS greater for samples deposited in alkaline solution. |
| 1 | Tsujimoto e al., 2017 [30] | Bond durability of universal adhesives. | Thermocycling decreases bond strength. |
| 2 | Sakrana and Ozcan, 2017 [31] | Different mechanical treatments (APA, CH2Cl2, HCl). | Better adhesion for HCl e APA. |
| 3 | Akazawa et al., 2017 [32] | Comparison between APA and TBC followed by the application of different primers. MDP-free composite cement. | -TBC + silane/10-MDP primer. -SAPA Al2O3 (50-70 µm) + silano/10-MDP primer. |
| 4 | Wandscher et al., 2016 [33] | Sandblasting with leucite powder, feldspar ceramic or Cojet method. Silane and adhesive cement application. | Better results for leucite powder sandblasting. |
| 5 | Esteves-Oliveira et al., 2016 [34] | Comparison between APA, TBC, ultrashort pulses laser. Self-adhesive composite. | Laser treatment is the more effective one. |
| 6 | Rona et al., 2017 [35] | Comparison between APA, TBS, Er: YAG e EDM (Electric Discharge Machine). MDP/silane or silane primer; MDP- based composite. | Better SBS values for EDM e Rocatec. |
| 7 | Sawada et al., 2016 [36] | Effectiveness of experimental conditioners, based on silica and quartz, applied before sintering. | Experimental solution does not improve significantly adhesion. |
| 8 | Zhao et al., 2016 [37] | Comparison of different primer/cement systems in improving zirconia adhesion. | Using an MDP-primer before cement improves adhesion, regardless of the type of cement (self-adhesive or MDP-free). |
| 9 | Iwasaki et al., 2016 [38] | Zirconia treatment with APA or TBC, followed by primer application with different functional components and traditional composite cement. | -TBC + 10-MDP/silane primer + traditional composite cement. |
| 0 | Passia et al., 2016 [39] | Effectiveness of different primers and composite cements after APA Al2O3. | -APA Al2O3 associated with MDP cement or phosphoric acid methacrylate cement and MDP primer. |
| 1 | Lopes et al., 2016 [40] | Different kinds of primers on sandblasted zirconia. MDP free cement. | MDP-based primers improve adhesion. |
| 2 | Salem et al., 2016 [41] | Different kind of treatments (APA Al2O3, SIE, “Modified fusion sputtering”). Self-adhesive composite. | -SIE or “Modified fusion sputtering” + silane/10-MDP primer. |
| 3 | Hallmann et al., 2016 [42] | Mechanical pre-treatments (APA with alumina or zirconia, abrasive paper, acid solution, plasma, argon-ion bombardment); 10-MDP composite. | The most effective method is APA with Al2O3. Increased adhesion strength even with sandblasting with zirconia particles, which seems to be less harmful. |
| 4 | Angkasith et al., 2016 [43] | Effect of saliva contamination with the use of 10-MDP primers. | If the contamination occurs after the primer, rinsing with water is sufficient. Otherwise, Ivoclean and APA are effective. |
| 5 | Bomicke et al., 2016 [44] | Comparison between different mechanical treatments (APA, Cojet, and Rocatec TBC), and comparison between the adhesive system. | -Rocatec + silane/10-MDP primer + 10-MDP composite. |
| 6 | Xie et al., 2016 [45] | Comparison between TBC and APA with different MDP primers. | -APA + Z-Prime plus+ 10-MDP primer -TBC |
| 7 | Cheung et al., 2015 [46] | Comparison of different surface treatments (vitrification, APA) followed by the application or not of silane/MDP primers and cementation with an MDP composite. | Liner (pre sintering) + HF + silane/MDP primer. |
| 8 | Ahn et al., 2015 [47] | Comparison between sandblasted or not zirconia. Application or not of primers with 10-MDP or other adhesive monomers. 10-MDP cement. | Good adhesion for APA + Primer 10-MDP + 10-MDP cement. Self-adhesive cement without preliminary sandblasting does not guarantee adhesion. |
| 9 | Alves et al., 2016 [48] | Comparison on cement (traditional composite or self-adhesive), and different substrates (Cojet, Rocatec, silane primer/10-MDP). | Better SBS for primer + traditional composite. |
| 0 | Yenisey et al., 2016 [49] | Effectiveness of various surface treatments and their association (APA, Cojet, Rocatec, Er: YAG, silane primer, Silano-Pen). | -APA + Cojet + silane. |
| 1 | Pereira et al., 2015 [50] | Comparison of application of various types of primers with or without sandblasting. | In general, sandblasting increases the bond strength if associated with the use of the primer, except for Scotchbond Universal (universal primer) and MZ Primer (primer with adhesive monomers). |
| 2 | Kim DH et al., 2015 [51] | Different cleaning methods: NaOCl, APA, Ivoclean, H2O2, H2O, and sodium dodecyl sulfate. | Effective for saliva cleansing NaOCl, Ivoclean, and sandblasting. |
| 3 | Liu D et al., 2015 [52] | TBC comparison with application of acid solutions (Nitric and Fluoridric acid) and application of pre-sintering silica particles. Silane/10-MDP primer, 10-MDP composite. | TBC method and silica particle deposition have higher SBS values. |
| 4 | Ishii et al., 2015 [53] | Comparison of saliva cleansing methods: water, sandblasting, Ivoclean, orthophosphoric acid. | Sandblasting and Ivoclean are effective. |
| 5 | Jiang et al., 2014 [54] | APA Al2O3 vs. SIE. 4-META-based composite. | Both methods increase adhesion values when compared to the control. |
| 6 | Oliveira-Ogliari et al., 2015 [55] | Effectiveness of solutions based on zirconia precursors compared with TBC. Silane, adhesive cement. | Promising results for experimental solutions. |
| 7 | Lung et al., 2015 [56] | Comparison of a solution based on silicon nitride with TBC. Silane, adhesive cement. | TBC gets better results. |
| 8 | Sciasci et al., 2015 [57] | Different surface treatments (APA, TBC) in association with different types of cement (modified CVI and adhesive cements). | High adhesion values for TBC with traditional adhesive cements or self-adhesive. |
| 9 | Qeblawi et al., 2015 [58] | Comparison of zirconia treatment (APA and TBC) and adhesive cement type. | -TBC (Cojet) + silane + self-adhesive.-APA (Al2O3 50 µm) + self-adhesive (MDP). |
| 0 | Feitosa et al., 2015 [59] | Different saliva cleansing methods: water, Ivoclean, orthophosphoric acid, isopropanol. | Ivoclean is the most effective of the tested methods. |
| 1 | Yi et al., 2015 [60] | APA and TBC, followed by primer application with different functional components and cementation with 10-MDP composite. | -APA Al2O3 + 10-MDP primer + 10-MDP composite. |
| 2 | Kim JH et al., 2015 [61] | Effectiveness comparison of various 10-MDP based primers. For this purpose, no preliminary treatments are done on zirconia and a traditional composite cement is used. | Primer universali All Bond Universal (10-MDP) and Single Bond Universal (10-MDP/silane) get better results than the Alloy Primer (10-MDP). |
| 3 | Klosa et al., 2014 [62] | Effectiveness of a solution of ethyl cellulose in the removal of contaminants. | The experimental solution improves SBS but does not reach the values of the uncontaminated sample. |
| 4 | Druck et al., 2015 [63] | Comparison of deposition of silica nanofilm (magnetron sputtering PVD) with tribological-chemical treatment. Silane and adhesive cement application. | Similar results (TBS) for TBC and Si nanofilm (5 nm). |
| 5 | De Souza et al., 2014 [64] | Different primers for zirconia, adhesive systems, and MDP- based cements. | Better adhesion values for samples in which the primer is applied. |
| 6 | Chen C et al., 2014 [65] | Comparison between TBC and APA followed or not by application of primer (Z-Prime Plus), both with traditional composite cement and self-adhesive (RelyX Unicem). | -TBC+ silane + traditional composite cement. |
| 7 | Shin et al., 2014 [66] | Two different MDP composites on zirconia treated with various methods (MDP primer, APA + primer, Cojet). | No significant differences on the type of cement. Best SBS for APA followed by the application of the 10-MDP primer. |
| 8 | Da Silva et al., 2014 [67] | Comparison of zirconia treatment (10-MDP primer vs. TBC) and comparison of cement type (traditional composite cement and self-adhesive, with adhesive monomers). | Best result for self-adhesive composite, in association with tribological-chemical treatment. |
| 9 | Oba et al., 2014 [68] | Efficacy of different primers on sandblasted zirconia. | MDP primers get better results, and are indifferent if silane is also present. |
| 0 | Liu et al., 2014 [69] | Comparison between: Rocatec, Glazing Porcelain + HF, pre-sintering silica powder application, pre-sintering zirconia powder application. Composite self-adhesive. | High SBS values for tTBC treatment and zirconia powder. |
| 1 | Erdem et al. 2014 [70] | Comparison of zirconia treatments (APA, TBC, Er: YAG), associated with different cements. | -Air abrasion 110 µm + self-adhesive composite.-Rocatec + silane + both traditional or self-adhesive cement. |
| 2 | Xie et al., 2013 [71] | Comparison of different treatments of zirconia (APA, Cojet, acid etching), followed by application or not of the primer. | -TBC (Cojet) + silane + MDP-free composite. -Hot etching + MDP primer + MDP-free composite. |
| 3 | Lin et al., 2013 [72] | Comparison of different treatments of zirconia (sandblasting with Al2O3 and Er: YAG laser). | The use of the Er: YAG laser is not able to increase the adhesion values. |
| 4 | Turker et al., 2013 [73] | Comparison of adhesion of CVI, CVI modified with resin, and MDP composite cements. Preliminary blasting. | Better adhesion values for self-adhesive cements. |
| 5 | Cheung et al., 2014 [74] | Comparison of different surface treatments (vitrification, APA) followed by the application or not of silane/MDP primers, cementation with MDP composite. | -TBC + silane/MDP + MDP cement.-Vitrification + HF+ silane/MDP+ MDP cement. |
| 6 | Keul et al., 2013 [75] | Comparison of the use of self-adhesive cements alone or in combination with primers containing adhesive monomers. | The use of the primer improves the bond strength. |
| 7 | Sarmento et al., 2014 [76] | APA and TBC comparison. Silane/10-MDP primer and 10-MDP composite. | After thermocycling spontaneous de-cementation of all the samples. |
| 8 | Heikkinen et al., 2013 [77] | Effect of different kind of silane on silica-coated alumina blasted zirconia. | Not significant differences. |
| 9 | Bottino et al., 2014 [78] | Comparison of two surface treatments of zirconia (vitrification and TB) associated with two different 10-MDP based resin cements. | Panavia F cement guarantees better adhesion, in particular in association with vitrification. |
| 0 | Gomes et al., 2015 [79] | Confronto trattamento zirconia (TBC, Laser Er: YAG) e tipologia cemento (cemento 10-MDP e cemento autoadesivo con altri monomeri). | -TBC (Rocatec) + silane + 10-MDP composite. |
| 1 | Liu L et al., 2015 [80] | Different zirconnia treatments (APA Al2O3, Nd: YAG laser). MDP-based cement. | -APA Al2O3 + MDP cement. |
| 2 | Seto et al., 2013 [81] | Comparison of different types of adhesive cement on sandblasted samples. | Higher adhesion values for cement with 10-MDP (Panavia 2.0 + Oxiguard primer) and GCem (self-adhesive with other monomers). |
| 3 | Baldissara et al., 2013 [82] | Comparison TBC with ceramic liner, and between self-adhesive composite (Panavia F e Rely X). | TBC achieves superior bond strength, especially in association with RelyX. Panavia F gives better results in association with the liner. |
| 4 | Vanderlei et al., 2014 [83] | Comparison between “glaze on technique and TBC.” MDP composite cement. | -Low fusing porcelain glaze + HF + silane MDPcomposite. |
| 5 | Wang et al., 2014 [84] | Use of MDP-primers (with different air-dried pressure) on sandblasted zirconia. | The pressure can affect the result depending on the primer used. |
| 6 | Saker et al., 2013 [85] | Comparison of different treatments (APA, TBC + silane or 10-MDP based primer, “glaze on” technique). Cementation with MDP composite. | -TBC + MDP primer - “Glaze on” technique + HF + silane. |
| 7 | Queiroz et al., 2013 [86] | Comparison of different zirconia treatments (sandblasting + primer, only primer, silica nanofilm with magnetron sputtering) and different cements (10-MDP, HEMA, other monomers). | -Air abrasion (Al2O3 45µm) + Metal/zirconia primer + self-adhesive composite. |
| 8 | De Sà Barbosa et al., 2013 [87] | Effectiveness comparison of some self-adhesive composite cements containing adhesive monomers other than 10-MDP (RelyX Unicem, BisCem, G-Cem, SeT) with traditional composite cement (RelyX ARC). APA 50 µm. | The only group to maintain higher values after 1 year is the one cemented with G-Cem. |
| 9 | Lung et al., 2013 [88] | Comparison between TEOS sol-gel technique and TBC. | Silica coating method improved adhesion more effectively. |
| 0 | Subasi et al., 2014 [89] | Comparison between mechanical treatments (APA Al2O3, TBC, Er: YAG laser) and between the cement (MDP or other monomers-based). | No differences between APA and TBC, with better results for MDP cements. |
| RMGIC, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement. APA, Air Particle Abrasion. TBC, Tribochemical silica coating. SBS, Shear Bond Strength. TBS, Tensile Bond Strength. | |||