Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 9, 2026

TAPE: A Biodegradable Hemostatic Glue Inspired by a Ubiquitous Compound in Plants for Surgical Application
Published on: June 8, 2016
HEMA-free versus HEMA-containing adhesive systems: a systematic review
Esraa Abdelkhalek1, Hamdi H Hamama2, Salah H Mahmoud1
1Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Postal Code, 35516, Egypt.
Background:
Hydrophilic monomer 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-free adhesive systems are gaining increasing popularity nowadays. Although the addition of HEMA to dental adhesives improves dentin wettability and resin diffusion into demineralized collagen fibrils, HEMA's high hydrophilicity can lead to hydrolytic degradation of the adhesive interface. Thus, HEMA-free adhesive systems have been developed. Unfortunately, the lack of HEMA in the adhesive composition may lead to a separation phase between hydrophobic and hydrophilic components. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the clinical performance of HEMA-free adhesive systems and compare them with HEMA-containing ones.
Methods:
An electronic search of The National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE/PubMed) was conducted. Eligibility criteria were reporting empirical data from clinical studies published between 2013 and 2023 about the clinical performance of HEMA-free adhesive systems for direct resin composite restorations. Studies with at least 2-year clinical follow-up done in permanent dentition in any form of cavities were selected. The included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool criteria.
Results:
The database search returned 147 studies; a total of 7 studies were included in this review; the majority of studies reported no significant difference between the two types of adhesives for the parameter of retention.
Conclusions:
HEMA-free adhesive systems exhibited good clinical performance with regard to retention. There was some concern about their influence on marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration due to the conflicted results reported by the included trials. Thus, the results need to be confirmed with long-term evaluations.
Systematic Review Registration:
PROSPERO CRD42023448952.
More Related Videos
09:41Hemocompatibility Testing of Blood-Contacting Implants in a Flow Loop Model Mimicking Human Blood Flow
Published on: March 5, 2020
08:44An In Vitro Hemodynamic Loop Model to Investigate the Hemocytocompatibility and Host Cell Activation of Vascular Medical Devices
Published on: August 21, 2020