- A-Z Publications
- Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry
- Previous Issues
- Volume 5, Issue 8, 2012
Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry - Volume 5, Issue 8, 2012
Volume 5, Issue 8, 2012
Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth : a systematic review of Chinese trialsSource: Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry 5, pp 377 –415 (2012)More Less
Background : The last update of this systematic review was assumed to be at risk of language bias, as it did not include the search of major Chinese medical databases.
Review objective : This systematic review addition with focus on the Chinese dental literature aimed to answer the question as to whether, in patients with carious cavities of any class in primary and permanent teeth, ART restorations have a higher failure rate than amalgam restorations placed using conventional rotary instruments in tooth cavities of the same size, type of dentition and follow-up period?
Search strategy : Databases: Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, formerly China Academic Journals), VIP Information and WanFang Data; reference lists of included articles were searched; Strings of search terms were constructed in simplified Chinese. In addition, the English search term "ART" was used for database search;
Selection criteria : Prospective, clinical controlled trials, with focus relevant to review objective and reporting on computable data with a follow-up period of at least one year were selected from the Chinese dental literature.
Data collection and analysis : Two review authors independently screened and extracted data from, and assessed the risk of bias in, the selected trial reports. Individual datasets were extracted from the trial results and analyzed regarding in-between-dataset heterogeneity and effect size estimates. The investigated outcome was restoration failure. Internal trial validity was assessed in terms of selection-, performance-, detection-, attrition-, publication- and reporting bias. Research gaps in the precision and consistency of the results were evaluated.
Main result : Eighteen trials were accepted for review. Of these 36 individual dichotomous datasets could be extracted and analyzed. The majority of the results showed no differences between both types of intervention. High risk of selection-, performance-, detection- and attrition bias was established. Existing research gaps were mainly due to lack of trials and small sample size.
Conclusion : The current evidence from the Chinese dental literature indicates that the failure rate of high-viscosity GIC/ART restorations is not higher than, but similar to that of conventional amalgam fillings after periods longer than one year. These results appear to corroborate the conclusions drawn during the previous systematic review update. There is a high risk that these results are affected by bias, and thus confirmation by further trials with suitably high number of participants is needed.
Quality of English literature reviews concerning longevity of direct posterior restorations in permanent teeth - a systematic review of reviews [Protocol]Source: Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry 5, pp 416 –423 (2012)More Less
Review aim: The aim of this systematic review is to appraise the quality of existing reviews in the English dental literature in regard to general review methodology, as well as specifically to the comparison method applied, during the last 20 years concerning the compared longevity of different types of direct restorations placed in permanent posterior teeth and subsequently the validity of such reviews' conclusions.
Systematic literature search: Databases: MEDLINE accessed via PubMed; CENTRAL accessed via Cochrane Library; Open access sources: Biomed Central, Database of Open Access Journals (DOAJ); Regional databases: IndMed, Sabinet, Scielo; Grey-Literature sources: Scirus (Medicine), OpenSIGLE, Google Scholar. Journals, identified as not being fully indexed in any of the above electronic databases, will be hand-searched. Searching of reference lists of included articles.
Search term development: Strings of search terms (containing MeSH and text search terms) together with Boolean operators will be developed and utilized for searching the databases.
Article selection criteria: (i) Reports of systematic or non-systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning clinical trials; (ii) Publication language in English; (iii) Review topic related to the comparative longevity (failure and/or survival rate) of direct posterior restorations in vital permanent teeth (premolar and/or molar teeth); (iv) Publication period 01.01.1992 - present. Exclusion will be based on the following criteria: (i) The review constitutes in essence either a: Clinical practice guideline; audit; survey; technical report; review commentary; historical overview; (ii) Focus on adhesive bonding systems, only; (iii) Focus on endodontic treated teeth; (iv) Expert opinion with narrow focus without some form of comprehensive overview of the current trial literature; (v) Lack of some explicit comparison of longevity data between at least two different tooth restoration types.
Data extraction: Both authors (SM and VY) will evaluate the quality of the accepted reviews independently using the 11-item AMSTAR tool; without being blinded to authors, institutions, journal names and review results. In addition, the type of longevity comparison utilized in each review will be recorded. The three types of comparisons: naïve - indirect; adjusted indirect; and direct comparison, as well as the comparison result between the compared restoration types, i.e. the longevity of Type A being larger or equal to Type B, will be recorded.
Data analysis and reporting: The unit of investigation is the review report. A ratio of the obtained AMSTAR score (achieved score/total number of assessed items) will be calculated for each accepted review. Log transformation will be utilized, to meet assumptions of linearity by computing the natural logarithm of each AMSTAR score ratio. Simple linear regression analysis will be conducted in order to quantify the relationships between: (i) year of review publication and general review quality (as expressed by the AMSTAR score ratio); (ii) general review quality and type of applied comparison. The trend lines of the regression results will be plotted in separate scatter graphs. The difference in conclusions drawn from naïve-indirect comparison and adjusted indirect/direct comparison will be quantified and discussed in light of review recommendations for clinical practice.