File Download
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85174188810
- PMID: 37838608
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Title | The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Caries Glass ionomer cement Prevention Restoration Systematic review |
Issue Date | 1-Dec-2023 |
Publisher | Elsevier |
Citation | Dental Materials, 2023, v. 39, n. 12, p. e1-e17 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Objective: The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Methods: Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed. Results: This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41–0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11–0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77–1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39–1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67–1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34–7.84]. Conclusions: GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959] |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/347608 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 4.6 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.186 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Ge, Kelsey Xingyun | - |
dc.contributor.author | Quock, Ryan | - |
dc.contributor.author | Chu, Chun Hung | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yu, Ollie Yiru | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-09-25T06:05:39Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-09-25T06:05:39Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2023-12-01 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Dental Materials, 2023, v. 39, n. 12, p. e1-e17 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0109-5641 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/347608 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p>Objective: The objective is to compare the preventive effect on secondary caries of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Methods: Two independent researchers conducted a systematic search of English publications in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane and Scopus. They selected randomized clinical trials comparing secondary caries incidences around GIC restorations (conventional GIC or resin-modified GIC) with amalgam or resin-composite restorations. Meta-analysis of the secondary-caries incidences with risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) as the effect measure was performed. Results: This review included 64 studies. These studies included 8310 GIC restorations and 5857 amalgam or resin-composite restorations with a follow-up period from 1 to 10 years. Twenty-one studies with 4807 restorations on primary teeth and thirty-eight studies with 4885 restorations on permanent teeth were eligible for meta-analysis. The GIC restorations had a lower secondary caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations in both primary dentition [RR= 0.55, 95% CI:0.41–0.72] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.20, 95% CI:0.11–0.38]. GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-composite restorations in primary dentition [RR= 0.92, 95% CI:0.77–1.10] and permanent dentition [RR= 0.77, 95% CI:0.39–1.51]. Conventional GIC restorations showed similar secondary caries incidence compared with resin-modified GIC-restored teeth in both primary dentition [RR= 1.12, 95% CI:0.67–1.87] and permanent dentition [RR= 1.63, 95% CI:0.34–7.84]. Conclusions: GIC restorations showed a superior preventive effect against secondary caries compared to amalgam restorations, and a similar preventive effect against secondary caries compared to resin-composite restorations in both primary and permanent teeth. [PROSPERO Registration ID: CRD42022380959]</p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Elsevier | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Dental Materials | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Caries | - |
dc.subject | Glass ionomer cement | - |
dc.subject | Prevention | - |
dc.subject | Restoration | - |
dc.subject | Systematic review | - |
dc.title | The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | published_or_final_version | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 37838608 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85174188810 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 39 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 12 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | e1 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | e17 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0109-5641 | - |