Table 1 Characteristics of the included studies in this review

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