Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

Open Access padlockePrints

Glass ionomer or composite resin for primary molars

Lookup NU author(s): Greig Taylor

Downloads


Licence

This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Nature Publishing Group, 2018.

For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.


Abstract

© 2018 British Dental Association. Data sources PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Virtual Health Library (VHL), Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials and OpenGrey. Study selection Randomised controlled trials comparing the clinical effectiveness of Class II restorations performed with conventional (C-GIC) or resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) and composite resin (CR) in primary molar teeth. No date of publication or language restrictions. Data extraction and synthesis Study selection was carried out independently by two reviewers, with abstracted data and risk of bias assessment being performed using the Cochrane tool. Data on the restorations were dichotomised as ‘acceptable’ (restorations without need of replacement or repair) or ‘unacceptable’ (restorations presenting failures or requiring repair or replacement) after which a number of meta-analyses were conducted. Results Ten studies were included in qualitative synthesis, and nine contributing to the meta-analyses. Six studies used a split-mouth design and four a parallel design. Seven studies used USPHS criteria, two applied the FDI criteria and one used their own. Seven studies reported restorations were placed under rubber dam isolation with the other three using cotton roll isolation. Six studies were at low risk of bias and four unclear risk of bias. GIC and CR presented similar failure patterns (Risk Difference [RD] =-0.04 (95%CI;-0.11 to 0.03) p=0.25, I2 = 51%), irrespective of follow-up period, type of GIC used, method of isolation or criteria used for assessment. GICs exhibited significantly lower values of secondary carious lesions ([RD] = 0.06 (95%CI; 0.0 to 0.10), p=0.008, I2 = 0%). Conclusions GICs and CRs have comparable clinical performance in Class II restorations in primary molars. GICs did show superior performance in the occurrence of secondary carious lesions, especially when RM-GIC under rubber dam isolation was used.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Jones G, Taylor G

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: Evidence-Based Dentistry

Year: 2018

Volume: 19

Issue: 3

Pages: 86-87

Online publication date: 26/10/2018

Acceptance date: 02/04/2018

Date deposited: 25/11/2019

ISSN (print): 1462-0049

ISSN (electronic): 1476-5446

Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401328

DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401328

PubMed id: 30361668


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

Find at Newcastle University icon    Link to this publication


Share