PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 4, 2026Journal of Functional Biomaterials0 citationsOpen Access

Effects and Properties of Deproteinizing Methods in Dentin: A Comprehensive Narrative Review

View Full Paper
MCMadalena Belmar da CostaAAAna Mano AzulSSSalvatore Sauro

Key Points

  • This review aims to summarize the various deproteinization methods used in dentin and their effects on resin–dentin interfaces.
  • Comprehensive literature search in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS up to October 2025.
  • Critical analysis of chemical, biological, and clinical aspects of deproteinization methods.
  • Evaluation of oxidizing agents, enzymatic treatments, physical approaches, and their combined effects.
  • Oxidizers are effective for organic removal but limited by oxidative carry-over affecting polymerization.
  • Enzymatic treatments show favorable bond strength outcomes but lack direct chemical surface confirmation.
  • Heat methods are not clinically viable; laser approaches require precise parameters for effectiveness.

Abstract

Dentin deproteinization strategies are being revisited as adjunctive approaches to reduce technique sensitivity, improve monomer infiltration to mineralized dentin, and enhance the longevity of resin–dentin interfaces. This organized narrative review critically summarizes the chemistry, kinetics, biological considerations, and clinical translatability of agents used for smear-layer deproteinization or post-etching deproteinization. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and LILACS up to October 2025 were used to identify evidence on oxidizing irrigants (sodium hypochlorite/hypochlorous acid, calcium hypochlorite, peracetic acid, chlorine dioxide), enzymatic proteolysis treatments (bromelain, papain, trypsin/pepsin, and GAG-targeting enzymes), physical approaches (heat and lasers), and post-oxidizer reducing/antioxidant strategies. Oxidizers provide the fastest and most surface-verified organic removal, but their clinical value is limited by concentration- and time-dependent oxidative carry-over, which interferes with free-radical polymerization. Enzymes offer a more selective route, although their support is driven largely by bond strength and morphological outcomes rather than direct surface-chemical confirmation. Heat remains a proof-of-principle method rather than a clinical option, whereas laser protocols are highly parameter-sensitive. Overall, deproteinization should be interpreted through a combined framework of surface chemistry, adhesive compatibility, aging behavior, biosafety, and chairside feasibility. Current evidence supports cautious, protocol-specific development rather than routine clinical adoption, with priority given to clinically realistic time-dose windows and paired surface/aging outcomes.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Costa et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2117fdd499ed480b170c60https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb17060277
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper