Full text loading...
n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Retention of GIC versus Amalgam - a quantitative systematic review
Objectives To establish whether Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) in cavities of comparable size and tooth location, has a better retention than amalgam.
Search strategy Trials were identified from a search of the database PubMed up to 19 January 2009 using the term : ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "glass ionomer"[Substance Name])) AND "Dental Amalgam"[Mesh].
Inclusion criteria Relevant to review question (Excluding articles reporting on GIC based Tunnel- or Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations); Published in English; Contain computable (dichotomous or continuous) data for both, test- and control group.
Data collection and analysis One trial was identified of which 3 individual datasets were extracted and analysed.
Main results The results of the separate datasets show that amalgam has higher retention in Class I and II cavities than low-viscosity GIC. No difference was found between these materials in Class III & V cavities. No meta-analysis was done.
Conclusions The systematic literature search identified one trial for review of which three separate datasets with relevance to the review question could be extracted. The overall results show amalgam having higher retention rates than GIC. However, all datasets include low-viscosity GIC, which - in the availability of newer, high-viscosity GIC with stronger physical properties - is regarded to be obsolete. Therefore, the results are insufficient to answer the review question conclusively. In addition, the results are limited by potential selection bias due to inadequate randomization and unclear allocation concealment. More high quality clinical trials are needed. It is recommended that reporting of such future trials should follow the CONSORT statement.
Article metrics loading...