The Journal of prosthetic dentistry · 2026
Efficacy of desensitizing agents applied to vital teeth prepared for fixed prostheses and their influence on the bond strength of dental cements: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Anjos Paiva Giovanna Dos, Rei Daltro Rosa Cleber Davi Del, Duarte Nathália Dantas, Alves Luciana Mara Negrão, Bento Victor Augusto Alves
Аннотация
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Dentin hypersensitivity and potential pulpal irritation during fixed prosthetic rehabilitation in vital teeth, combined with uncertainty regarding the effects of dentin desensitizers on cement retention and bonding, require further investigation.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents in controlling pain during the preparation of vital teeth for fixed prostheses, as well as to investigate their influence on the bond strength of dental cements.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022328996). A population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) question was formulated: "In vital teeth undergoing preparation for fixed prostheses, does the use of desensitizing agents, compared with their non-use, reduce postoperative pain and influence the bond strength of dental cements?" An electronic search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases in April 2026, with no language or publication date restrictions. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and laboratory (in vitro) studies. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was applied to in vitro studies. A meta-analysis of cement bond strength was performed using the inverse-variance (IV) method for continuous outcomes, expressed as mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (α=.05), in Review Manager (RevMan 5.4; Cochrane Group).
RESULTS: The initial electronic search identified 458 articles. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review, comprising 5 RCTs published between 2004 and 2022, evaluating a total of 200 participants, and 13 in vitro studies published between 1996 and 2024, assessing a total of 1718 teeth specimens. The main desensitizing agents evaluated were GLUMA, Telio CS, Shield Force Plus, and Imperva. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in bond strength with the use of the desensitizing agent GLUMA across different types of dental cements (P=.27; MD=0.42; 95% CI: -0.32 to 1.15; I²=93%, P<.01), while no heterogeneity was observed within subgroups (I²=0%, P=.54).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of GLUMA on teeth prepared for fixed prostheses is effective in reducing dentin hypersensitivity and does not compromise the bond strength to fixed prostheses.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of desensitizing agents in controlling pain during the preparation of vital teeth for fixed prostheses, as well as to investigate their influence on the bond strength of dental cements.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022328996). A population, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) question was formulated: "In vital teeth undergoing preparation for fixed prostheses, does the use of desensitizing agents, compared with their non-use, reduce postoperative pain and influence the bond strength of dental cements?" An electronic search was performed in the PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and ProQuest databases in April 2026, with no language or publication date restrictions. Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and laboratory (in vitro) studies. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias in RCTs, and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tool was applied to in vitro studies. A meta-analysis of cement bond strength was performed using the inverse-variance (IV) method for continuous outcomes, expressed as mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) (α=.05), in Review Manager (RevMan 5.4; Cochrane Group).
RESULTS: The initial electronic search identified 458 articles. Eighteen studies were included in the systematic review, comprising 5 RCTs published between 2004 and 2022, evaluating a total of 200 participants, and 13 in vitro studies published between 1996 and 2024, assessing a total of 1718 teeth specimens. The main desensitizing agents evaluated were GLUMA, Telio CS, Shield Force Plus, and Imperva. The meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in bond strength with the use of the desensitizing agent GLUMA across different types of dental cements (P=.27; MD=0.42; 95% CI: -0.32 to 1.15; I²=93%, P<.01), while no heterogeneity was observed within subgroups (I²=0%, P=.54).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of GLUMA on teeth prepared for fixed prostheses is effective in reducing dentin hypersensitivity and does not compromise the bond strength to fixed prostheses.