Conclusions In light of the currently available scientific evidence , dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents does not enhance the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin .
The HOCl deproteinizing agent exhibited minimal adverse effects on bonding to dentin in comparison with NaOCl solutions
Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyze previously published studies of the effects of dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents on the bonding of  self-etch ( SE ) adhesives to dentin .
Additionally , a meta- analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of the above-mentioned surface pretreatment methods on the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin .
Effect of chemomechanical caries removal on bonding of self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentin.
PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of enzyme-based ( Papacárie ) and sodium-hypochlorite-based ( Carisolv ) chemomechanical caries removal methods on bonding of self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentin , in comparison to the st and ard rotary-instrument caries removal method . MATERIAL S AND METHODS Seventy-eight carious permanent molars exhibiting frank cavitation into dentin were used . Forty-eight teeth were r and omly divided into three groups , according to the caries excavation methods : ( i ) Papacárie , ( ii ) Carisolv and ( iii ) a round steel bur . After caries removal , each group was subdivided into two groups for two-step ( Clearfil SE Bond ) or one-step ( Clearfil S3 Bond ) self-etching adhesive application and resin composite buildups . Bonded specimens were sectioned into beams for microtensile bond strength testing . Bond strength data were analyzed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey 's test . For interfacial nanoleakage evaluation using a field-emission scanning electron microscope , caries was similarly removed from the remaining thirty carious molars , bonding was performed as for bond strength testing , and the teeth were sectioned . RESULTS RESULTS of three-way ANOVA revealed that bond strength was significantly affected by " adhesive " ( p<0.001 ) and " dentin " ( p<0.001 ) , but not " caries excavation methods " ( p>0.05 ) . The bond strength of the two-step self-etching adhesive was significantly higher than that of the one-step self-etching adhesive ( p<0.001 ) . Conversely , the bond strength of self-etching adhesives to sound dentin was significantly higher than to residual caries-affected dentin ( p<0.001 ) . Greater silver penetration was observed in the bonded interfaces of residual caries-affected dentin and in interfaces bonded with the one-step self-etching adhesive vs those bonded with the two-step self-etching adhesive . CONCLUSION Chemomechanical caries removal did not affect the bonding of self-etching adhesives to caries-affected dentin as compared to caries excavation with rotary instruments
Conclusions In light of the currently available scientific evidence , dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents does not enhance the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin .
The HOCl deproteinizing agent exhibited minimal adverse effects on bonding to dentin in comparison with NaOCl solutions
Objectives The aim of this systematic review was to critically analyze previously published studies of the effects of dentin surface pretreatment with deproteinizing agents on the bonding of  self-etch ( SE ) adhesives to dentin .
Additionally , a meta- analysis was conducted to quantify the effects of the above-mentioned surface pretreatment methods on the bonding of SE adhesives to dentin .