Full text loading...
n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Antibacterial effect of GIC versus composite resin - a quantitative systematic review
Objectives To appraise and present detailed quantitative evidence in answer to the review question, whether glass ionomer cement (GIC) has a higher antibacterial effect than composite resin.
Search strategy The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on 30 September 2009 using the terms: ("Anti-Bacterial Agents"[Mesh] OR "Anti-Bacterial Agents "[Pharmacological Action]) AND ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "Cermet Cements"[Mesh]) AND ("Composite Resins"[Mesh]). References of accepted articles were checked for additional studies suitable for inclusion.
Inclusion criteria Relevant to review question; Published in English language; 2-arm progressive longitudinal trial (in-vitro, in-situ, in-vivo).
Exclusion criteria No computable continuous data for both, test- and control group; Not all data from investigated units reported; No randomized or quasi-randomized study design for in-situ and in-vivo trials.
Data collection and analysis The systematic literature search found 13 trials in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 5 in-vitro trials could be accepted for review. From the reviewed trials 200 individual datasets were extracted and analyzed.
Main results and conclusions In summary, cured GIC, in-vitro, appears to have an overall higher inhibitory effect on the bacterial growth of S. mutans, S. mitis, S.oralis and S. sanguis than composite resin materials with or without fluoride content. No difference was found between both material groups for Lactobacillus and S. sobrinus. No in-situ or in-vitro trials could be identified to this review question and that limits the clinical applicability of the current results, which require confirmation in-situ and in-vivo.
Article metrics loading...