File Download
  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

TitleThe preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
KeywordsCaries
Glass ionomer cement
Prevention
Restoration
Systematic review
Issue Date1-Dec-2023
PublisherElsevier
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 Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/347608
ISSN
2023 Impact Factor: 4.6
2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.186

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGe, Kelsey Xingyun-
dc.contributor.authorQuock, Ryan-
dc.contributor.authorChu, Chun Hung-
dc.contributor.authorYu, Ollie Yiru-
dc.date.accessioned2024-09-25T06:05:39Z-
dc.date.available2024-09-25T06:05:39Z-
dc.date.issued2023-12-01-
dc.identifier.citationDental Materials, 2023, v. 39, n. 12, p. e1-e17-
dc.identifier.issn0109-5641-
dc.identifier.urihttp://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.languageeng-
dc.publisherElsevier-
dc.relation.ispartofDental Materials-
dc.rightsThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.-
dc.subjectCaries-
dc.subjectGlass ionomer cement-
dc.subjectPrevention-
dc.subjectRestoration-
dc.subjectSystematic review-
dc.titleThe preventive effect of glass ionomer cement restorations on secondary caries formation: A systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.description.naturepublished_or_final_version-
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.dental.2023.10.008-
dc.identifier.pmid37838608-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85174188810-
dc.identifier.volume39-
dc.identifier.issue12-
dc.identifier.spagee1-
dc.identifier.epagee17-
dc.identifier.issnl0109-5641-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats