n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Survival of resin-modified GIC and compomer restorations in primary teeth - a quantitative systematic review
|Article Title||Survival of resin-modified GIC and compomer restorations in primary teeth - a quantitative systematic review|
|© Publisher:||Midentistry CC|
|Journal||Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry|
|Publication Date||Jan 2010|
|Pages||90 - 98|
Objectives To assess whether resin-modified glass ionomer cement restorations have a similar survival rate than compomer fillings in primary teeth.
Search strategy The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on 7 January 2010 using the terms: (("Compomers"[Mesh] AND "Glass lonomer Cements"[Mesh]) OR "glass ionomer "[Substance Name]) AND '"Tooth, Deciduous"[Mesh]. References of accepted articles were checked for additional studies suitable for inclusion.
Inclusion criteria 2-arm prospective longitudinal trial with relevance to review question including computable data; published in English. Exclusion criteria Trials were excluded if not all entered subjects were accounted for at the end of the trial; subjects of both groups not followed up the same way and did not report any computable data.
Data collection and analysis The systematic literature search found 5 (one clinical and 4 laboratory) trials in line with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. From these 47 individual datasets (36 clinical and 11 laboratory) were extracted. No meta-analysis was possible due to clinical / methodological heterogeneity.
Main results From the clinical 36 datasets, 34 showed no difference between both types of materials in terms of caries, wear, restoration fracture, tooth fracture, loss of material retention and endodontic complication after 7 years. The results of 2 datasets were in favor of compomer. The results from the laboratory 11 datasets are conflicting in terms of higher material shear bond strength to dentin. No difference was observed in terms of microleakage. Quality assessment of the clinical trials showed randomization of the sequence allocation and concealment of the allocation was to be inadequate since alternate use of both materials during the trial was reported. The reporting of assessor assignment (whether the assessor was a different person than the operator) was judged as unclear and the lack of reported blind outcome assessment was considered to be inadequate.
Conclusions The overall clinical results show no difference between both types of materials after 7 years. The clinical result for loss of retention is confirmed by conflicting laboratory data regarding material shear bond strength to dentin. The available clinical results are limited by potential selection and detection bias. Further high quality randomized control trials are needed.
Article metrics loading...