4.6 Article

Bovine tooth is a substitute for human tooth on bond strength studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies

Journal

DENTAL MATERIALS
Volume 32, Issue 11, Pages 1385-1393

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.019

Keywords

Bond strength; Substrate; Human teeth; Bovine teeth

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives. This study aimed to systematically review the literature to compare the bond strength values achieved from human and bovine teeth of in vitro studies. Data and source. The PubMed/MEDLINE, ISI Web of Science and Scopus electronic databases were searched to select laboratorial studies that evaluated adhesive systems bond strength to human and bovine teeth. No publication year or language restriction was considered. Study selection. From 1,285 potentially eligible studies, 15 were selected for full-text analysis, 11 were included in the systematic review and 9 in the meta-analysis. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Mean differences were obtained by comparing bond strength values between human and bovine teeth (overall analysis), and considering enamel and dentin separately (subgroups analysis). Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan5.1, with random effects model, at a significance level of p = 0.05. Results. No significant difference was found between human and bovine teeth (p = 0.35), either for enamel (p =0.07) or for dentin (p = 0.93) substrates. Low to moderate heterogeneity was found on the meta-analysis. All included studies in the systematic review scored between medium and high risk of bias. Conclusions. Bovine teeth can be a reliable substitute for human ones on bond strength studies of adhesive systems to both enamel and dentin substrates. (C) 2016 The Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available