1887

n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Cariostatic effect of GIC versus compomers - a quantitative systematic review

USD

 

Abstract

To assess whether glass ionomer cement (GIC) and compomers have the same cariostatic effect.


Trials were identified from a search of the databases PubMed on 03 March 2008 and LILACS on 27 May 2008 using the terms : ("Cariostatic Agents"[Mesh] OR "Dental Caries"[Mesh] OR "Cariostatic Agents"[Pharmacological Action]) AND ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "Cermet Cements"[Mesh]) AND Compomer, as well as 'agentes cariostáticos cimentos de ionômeros de vidro compômeros', respectively.
Relevant to review question; published in English or Portuguese language; in-vivo or in-situ study design; Randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Two trials were identified of which 2 individual datasets were extracted and analysed.
For multiple surface restorations in primary teeth) after 1 year: Odd ratio (OR) 0.41 [95%CI 0.04 - 4.80] p = 0.48; for single surface restorations in primary teeth) after 3.5 years: OR 21.21 [95%CI 1.07 - 420.80] p = 0.05.
The computed Odds Ratios indicated no statistically significant difference in the cariostatic effect of both materials. However, the number of trials, identified to this topic is small. More high quality clinical trials are needed. It is recommended that reporting of future trials should follow the CONSORT statement.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/mident/4/1/EJC75747
2011-01-01
2016-12-08
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error