Full text loading...
n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Cariostatic effect of GIC versus compomers - a quantitative systematic review
Objectives To assess whether glass ionomer cement (GIC) and compomers have the same cariostatic effect.
Search strategy 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.
Inclusion criteria Relevant to review question; published in English or Portuguese language; in-vivo or in-situ study design; Randomized controlled trials (RCT).
Data collection and analysis Two trials were identified of which 2 individual datasets were extracted and analysed.
Main results 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.
Conclusions 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.
Article metrics loading...