Full text loading...
n Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Anticariogenic effect of GIC versus composite resin - a brief quantitative systematic overview
Objective to appraise and present detailed quantitative evidence in answer to the review question, whether glass ionomer cement (GIC) has a higher anticariogenic effect than composite resin.
Search strategy The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on 17 June 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 ("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- or more arm prospective trial (in-situ, in-vivo).
Exclusion criteria No computable data for both, test- and control group; not all data from investigated units reported; insufficient random allocation of study subjects; older reports from the same trial.
Data collection and analysis The systematic literature search found 14 trials in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 8 trials could be accepted for review. From the reviewed trials 10 individual datasets were extracted and analysed.
Main results and conclusions The analysis results of dichotomous data showed no difference in caries incidence on tooth tissue adjacent to these materials. The analysis of continuous data showed significant higher microhardness and significantly less mineral loss of tooth tissue adjacent to GIC after acid attack than tooth tissue adjacent to composite.
Article metrics loading...