Table 1.
Characteristics of the included studies in this review
| Study | Study type | Participants | Age range | Intervention | Sample size | Observation period (months) | Criteria | Outcomes | Conclusion | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cavalheiro et al. [26] | RCT | 62 |
5–8 year olds Mean: 7.1 |
1. Adper Single Bond (15 s etching) 2. Adper Single Bond 2 (7 s etching) (3M ESPE) |
100 Class I restorations 1. n = 50 2. n = 50 |
18 months | FDI |
Survival rates were as follows: 15 s etching = 78.3% 7 s etching = 92% |
The etching time did not influence the outcome of the restorations, although a reduced time showed better tendency | ||
| Yazicioglu et al. [27] | RCT | 31 |
4–9 years old Mean: 6.67 |
1. Vertise flow (Kerr) 2. Clearfil SE Bond and Filtek Z250 (Kuraray; 3M ESPE) |
61 Class I restorations 1. n = 30 2. n = 31 |
12 months |
Modified USPHS |
No loss of retention was documented for either materials for a 1-year period | Good clinical scores for the self-adhesive material after 1-year. No differences for both materials | ||
| Gianetti et al. [28] | Clinical trial | 28 |
6–12 years old Mean 8.5 years |
1. Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) 2. SDR Flowable (Dentsply) |
56 Class II restorations 1. (n = 28) 2. (n = 28) |
24months |
Modified USPHS |
Retention rates were not reported. However, marginal adaptation seems to be favoured in the SDR composite system | The authors recommend the use of SDR, a novel flowable resin for primary teeth due to its ease of application and results at 2 years time | ||
| Oter et al. [29] | RCT | 80 | Mean: 7.4 years |
1. Filtek Z250 (3M ESPE) 2. Filtek Bulkfill (3M ESPE) Adhesive: Single Bond Universal (self-etch mode) |
160 Class I restorations 1. (n = 80) 2. (n = 80) |
12 months |
Modified USPHS |
All of the evaluated restorations were retained after 12 months (100% success rate) | Both materials were clinically successful after 1 year | ||
| Lenzi et al. [30] | RCT | 44 |
5–10 years old Mean: 7.2 years |
1. Scotchbond Universal (E&R) 2. Scotchbond Universal (SE) (3M ESPE) |
90 Class I/II restorations 1. (n = 87) 2. (n = 88) |
18 months |
Modified USPHS |
Survival rates were 100 percent until 6 months, 90.6% at 12 months and 81.4% at 18 months | The different strategies had not influence on the clinical behaviour after selective caries removal | ||
| Sabbagh et al. [31] | RCT | 34 | 6–12 years old |
1. Vertise Flow (Kerr) 2. Premise Flowable + Optibond All-In-One (self-etch) |
68 Class I restorations 1. (n = 34) 2. (n = 34) |
24 months |
Modified USPHS |
No significant difference of outcomes was found between Vertise Flow and Premise Flowable At a 2-year re-call, 3 VF restorations were lost, and 1 PF restoration |
Vertise Flow showed a similar clinical behaviour to Premise Flowable at a 2-year observation period | ||
| Atabek et al. [32] | RCT | 30 | 7–16 years old |
1. Herculite Ultra (Kerr) 2. SonicFill (Kerr) Adhesive: Optibond-All-In-One (Kerr) |
60 Class I restorations 1. (n = 30) 2. (n = 30) |
24 months |
Modified USPHS |
Both intervention groups resulted in 100% retention, anatomical form and secondary caries categories | Both materials demonstrated similar clinical behaviour results at 2 years. The easier placement technique of sonic fill may be of benefit in children | ||
| Donmez et al. [33] | RCT | 32 |
4–7 years old Mean: 5.96 |
1. Optibond FL (Kerr) 2. XP Bond (Dentsply) 3: AdheSE (Ivoclar) 4: G-bond (GC Corporation) |
128 Class II restorations 1. (n = 32) 2. (n = 32) 3: (n = 32) 4: (n = 32) |
36 months | FDI |
The failure rates of the 4 groups were as follows, at 36 months: G1: 3.8% G2: 4.2% G3: 7.4% G4: 7.7% |
There were no significant differences in retention rate of the different adhesives, but there were marginal adaptation differences, with E&R systems outperforming SE systems |