Skip to main content
. 2021 Nov 22;16(2):258–265. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1736332

Table 2. Summary of data extracted from selected studies.

Study (design) Groups Evaluation criteria - outcome Number of failures (%) Limitations Conclusion (as reported in the paper)
Van Dijken and Pallesen (2017) 24 (Randomized Clinical Trial) N  = 114
C: Two-step etch-and-rise, Optibond
( n  = 57)
I: One Step self-etch all bond universal ( n  = 57) 		USPHS Ryge modified C:6 (10.52%)
I:7 (12.28%)		 Moisture control with cotton rolls;
In patients with a single restoration, preference was given to intervention.		 No statistically significant differences between groups. Fracture was the most common failure type.
Van Dijken and Pallesen (2015) 9 (Randomized Clinical Trial) N  = 158
C: Two-step etch-and-rise, Excite ( n  = 69)
I: One Step self-etch Xeno III ( n  = 89) 		USPHS Ryge modified C: 21 (30.43%)
I:26 (29.21%)		 Moisture control with cotton rolls;
In patients with a single restoration, preference was given to intervention.		 No statistically significant differences between groups. Fracture was the most common failure type.
Van Dijken and Pallesen (2017) 25 (Randomized Clinical Trial) N  = 139
C: Three step TEGDMA/HEMA free etch-and-rise, CMF-els ( n  = 70)
I: One step HEMA free self-etch, Adhese One F ( n  = 65) 		USPHS Ryge modified C:12 (17.14%)
I:24 (36.92%)		 Moisture control with cotton rolls; customized/modified adhesive. The etch-and-rinse adhesive was better than the self-etch adhesive.
Çakir and Demirbuga (2019) 26 (Randomized Clinical Trial) N  = 133
C: Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil Universal, Prime&Bond Elect Universal, All bond Universal and Single Bond Universal
( n  = 99)
I: Five step self-etch (Gluma Bond Universal, Clearfil Universal, Prime&Bond Elect Universal, All bond Universal and Single Bond Universal)( n  = 100). 		USPHS Ryge modified C: 37 (37.38%) I: 29 (29%) Used the same adhesives in the control and intervention groups, changing only the acid etching step. No statistically significant differences between groups.
Perdigão et al (2009) 23 (Randomized Clinical Trial) N  = 199
C:Etch-and-rinse adhesive, One step Plus ( n  = 23)
I: Self-etching adhesives: iBond, ( n  = 21), Clearfil SE ( n  = 22) Adper Prompt ( n  = 25) 		USPHS Ryge modified C:
6 (26.08%)
I(Adper):
16 (64%)
I(Clearfil): 11 (50.0%)		 – Control group resulted in statistically better good marginal
adaptation than intervention groups. One intervention group (iBond) presented unacceptable outcome.