2021
DOI: 10.4103/jorr.jorr_25_20
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The clinical effectiveness of adhesive agents in posterior restorations: Which adhesive strategy performs better?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The omission of the separate application of the hydrophobic bonding resin in the 1-step SE adhesives makes them more prone to hydrolytic degradation and poor clinical performance. 4,[44][45][46][47] The 1-step SE adhesives have been reported to have low immediate and long-term dentin bond strengths, 48,49 poor bonding to intact enamel, 39 incompatibilities with self-curing resins, 50 reduced shelf-life, 51 poor clinical outcomes, 44,46 among other shortcomings. 4,48,52 Also, a meta-analysis of the literature showed that 1-step SE adhesives had weaker bonding ability than 2-step SE adhesives.…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The omission of the separate application of the hydrophobic bonding resin in the 1-step SE adhesives makes them more prone to hydrolytic degradation and poor clinical performance. 4,[44][45][46][47] The 1-step SE adhesives have been reported to have low immediate and long-term dentin bond strengths, 48,49 poor bonding to intact enamel, 39 incompatibilities with self-curing resins, 50 reduced shelf-life, 51 poor clinical outcomes, 44,46 among other shortcomings. 4,48,52 Also, a meta-analysis of the literature showed that 1-step SE adhesives had weaker bonding ability than 2-step SE adhesives.…”
Section: Dovepressmentioning
confidence: 99%