Evidence Based Summaries in Dentistry - Volume 5, Issue 2, 2015
Volume 5, Issue 2, 2015
Direct posterior high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in permanent teethSource: Evidence Based Summaries in Dentistry 5, pp 7 –8 (2015)More Less
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of direct high-viscosity glass-ionomer versus hybrid resin composite restorations in posterior permanent teeth - a systematic review. Open Dent J 2015; 9: 438-48.
In recent years, the use of resin composites for the placement of posterior permanent tooth restorations has increased, particularly because of its better aesthetic properties and the general concerns about the limitations of amalgam. Notwithstanding, a systematic review concluded that composite resin fillings show a shorter longevity than amalgam fillings.
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cements versus silver amalgam as restorative materials for permanent posterior teethSource: Evidence Based Summaries in Dentistry 5, pp 9 –11 (2015)More Less
Mickenautsch S. Are high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements inferior to silver amalgam as restorative materials for permanent posterior teeth? A Bayesian analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2015 Oct 8;15(1):118. The term 'high-viscosity' or 'high-viscous glass-ionomer cement' (HVGIC) has emerged within the scientific dental literature and is related in clinical studies specifically to the products Fuji IX (GC Corporation, Japan) or Ketac Molar (3M ESPE, Germany). A definition of HVGICs in line with chemical characteristics such as the powder - liquid ratio or its compressive strength in comparison to other chemically cured glass-ionomers appears difficult due to contradictive in-vitro evidence. However, HVGICs appear distinct from other (low) viscosity glass-ionomers (including Cermets) in their comparative clinical survival rate to that of conventional amalgam restorations. Meta-analysis results indicate a survival rate for HVGIC (Fuji IX; Ketac Molar) tooth restorations similar to that of amalgam but show significantly lower survival rates for "low-viscosity" GICs (Chelon Silver (= Cermet); Chem Fil; Fuji II) than for amalgam.
Laboratory versus controlled clinical trial results : high-viscosity glass-ionomers in comparison to amalgam for tooth restorationsSource: Evidence Based Summaries in Dentistry 5, pp 12 –13 (2015)More Less
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Do Laboratory Results concerning High-ViscosityGlass-Ionomers versus Amalgam for Tooth Restorations Indicate Similar Effect Direction and Magnitude than that of Controlled Clinical Trials? - A Meta-Epidemiological Study. PLoS One. 2015 Jul 13;10(7):e0132246. A large percentage of evidence concerning dental interventions is based on laboratory research. A simple PubMed search (27 August 2014) of the dental literature published between 2009 - 2014, using the broad MeSH terms "Dental Amalgam" and "Glass Ionomer Cements" reveals a 2-3, as well as an over 7 times higher number of listed citations of laboratory (including in-vitro and animal based in-vivo) studies than of prospective clinical studies with control groups (including randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, split-mouth trials and prospective 2-arm observational studies), respectively. The apparent wealth of laboratory evidence is sometimes used as basis for clinical inference and recommendations for daily dental practice.