{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02471042471042471, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006177606177606178, 'mean_word_length': 5.384236453201971, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clinical effectiveness of contemporary dentin bonding agents

Aim: The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on the clinical effectiveness of contemporary resin-based dentin bonding agents primarily focussing on the longevity of restoration. Materials and Methods: The literature published from June 2004 up to September 2010 was reviewed for clinical trials that tested the effectiveness of dentin bonding agents in the longevity of noncarious class V restoration. Results of each study reported using the USPHS criteria for clinical assessment of restoration were included and tabulated. The American Dental Association guidelines for dentin and enamel adhesives were used as a reference to compare the performance of individual bonding agents. Kruskal–Wallis followed by Mann–Whitney U was done to compare the mean Alfa score percentage for the three categories of bonding systems [etch-and-rinse (ER), self-etch primer (SEP), and self-etch-adhesive (SEA)]. Results: A comparison of the mean Alfa score percentages revealed no difference between the ER, SEP, and SEA categories of bonding systems except for marginal adaptation where ER was found to be superior to SEA. Conclusion: The clinical effectiveness of resin-based bonding agents is comparable among the three categories.