Table 2 Main findings of the effect of SDF application on the bond strength of dentine to etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems
Authors (Year) | Sample size per group | Mean bond strength value (Mpa) | Analytical tool (magnification) Dominant failure mode | Main findings | Summary | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Control group | Test group | ||||||
SDF | SDF/KI | ||||||
Van Duker et al., [23] (2019) | 10 | Etch-and-rinse system |  | Not reported | • Application of SDF followed by rinsing with water had no significant influence on the mTBS of demineralized dentine to the adhesive • Application of SDF/KI followed by rinsing with water reduced the mTBS of demineralized dentine to the adhesive | ns/decrease | |
23.5 ± 10.7 | 19.8 ± 8.4 | 7.9 ± 6.6* | |||||
Lutgen et al., [27] (2018) | 10 | Self-etch system (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive) |  | Light microscope (5x) (1) Control: Mixed (2) SDF (air-dry): Adhesive (3) SDF (rinse): Adhesive (4) SDF (polish): Adhesive (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive) Mixed (Scotchbond Etchant and Clearfil SE Bond 2) | • Application of SDF followed by either air-drying or rinsing with water reduced the mSBS of sound dentine to the three study adhesives • Application of SDF followed by polishing reduced the mSBS of sound dentine to the Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, whereas there were no significant influences on the other two adhesive systems. | decrease | |
38.4 ± 4.3 | 12.8 ± 1.7* (air-dry) 19.9 ± 9.4* (rinse) 28.7 ± 7.1* (polish) | ||||||
Etch-and-rinse system (Scotchbond Universal Adhesive + Scotchbond Etchant) | |||||||
44.5 ± 4.6 | 24.0 ± 2.7* (air-dry) 31.9 ± 8.2* (rinse) 44.3 ± 4.6 (polish) | ||||||
Self-etch system (Clearfil SE Bond 2) | |||||||
40.0 ± 2.3 | 12.9 ± 3.7* (air-dry) 28.6 ± 3.8* (rinse) 35.7 ± 4.7 (polish) | ||||||
Wu et al., [28] (2016) | 12 | Etch-and-rinse system |  | Visual inspection and SEM Adhesive | • Application of SDF followed by rinsing with water had no significant influence on the mTBS of sound dentine to the adhesive | ns | |
162.09 ± 81.08 | 139.85 ± 88.53 | ||||||
Selvaraj et al., [30] (2016) | 15 | Etch-and rinse system (Adper Single Bond 2) |  | SEM Adhesive | • Application of SDF/KI followed by rinsing with water had no significant influence on the mSBS of sound dentine to the two adhesives | ns | |
28.69 ± 1.49 |  | 29.52 ± 1.13 | |||||
Self-etch system (Adper Easy One) | Â | ||||||
28.47 ± 0.53 |  | 29.04 ± 0.77 | |||||
Kucukyilmaz et al., [31] (2016) | 32 | S-dentine 36.79 ± 5.37 D-dentine 30.10 ± 5.88 S-dentine+laser 37.06 ± 5.53 D-dentine+laser 34.78 ± 5.34 | 31.87 ± 7.54* 18.89 ± 2.28* 22.50 ± 6.49* 17.65 ± 3.15* |  | Light microscope (40x) Adhesive | • Application of SDF reduced the mTBS of both sound and demineralized dentine to adhesives • Laser irradiation adversely affected the mTBS of SDF-treated dentine | decrease |
Koizumi et al., [32] (2016) | 10 | Etch-and-rinse system (Optibond FL) |  | SEM Control: Cohesive SDF/KI: Mixed | • Application of SDF/KI reduced the mTBS of sound dentine to the three adhesives | decrease | |
32.1 ± 1.2 |  | 21.4 ± 9.4* | |||||
Self-etch system (Optibond Versa) | Â | ||||||
35.0 ± 3.9 |  | 9.6 ± 2.0* | |||||
Self-etch system (Clearfil Liner Bond F) | Â | ||||||
28.4 ± 8.4 |  | 10.8 ± 2.1* | |||||
Quock et al., [33] (2012) | 7 | Self-etch system (Peak SE) |  | Not reported Adhesive and/or cohesive | • Application of SDF followed by rinsing with water had no significant influence on the mTBS of sound dentine to the two adhesives | ns | |
32.96 ± 6.72 | 23.99 ± 8.04 (12% SDF) 32.73 ± 10.54 (38% SDF) | ||||||
Etch-and-rinse system (Peak LC) | |||||||
30.81 ± 2.55 | 39.00 ± 11.46 (12% SDF) 34.41 ± 10.48 (38% SDF) | ||||||
Soeno et al., [35] (2001) | 5 | Super-bond C&B |  | SEM Super-bond C&B Control: Cohesive SDF: Adhesive Panavia Fluoro Cement Control: Mixed SDF: Adhesive | • Application of SDF reduced the TBS of bovine dentine to the two adhesives | decrease | |
10.2 ± 1.9 | 6.0 ± 2.2* | ||||||
Panavia Fluoro Cement | |||||||
7.1 ± 1.2 | 2.6 ± 1.1* | ||||||