Home Subscription Services
 
   

 
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
JAD Home Page
About the Editor
Editorial Board
Submit
Author Guidelines
Submission Form
Reprints / Articles
Permissions
Advertising
Advertising
MEDLINE Search
 
 
 
 
 
FacebookTwitter
Quintessence Publishing: Journals: JAD

 

The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

Edited by Prof. Dr. Roland Frankenberger, Prof. Bart Van Meerbeek

ISSN (print) 1461-5185 • ISSN (online) 1757-9988

Publication:

September/October 2018
Volume 20 , Issue 5



Pages: 435–452
DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a41310
Back
Share Abstract:

Are Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations in Cervical Lesions More Long-Lasting than Resin-based Composite Resins? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Thaynara Faelly Boing / Juliana Larocca de Geus / Letícia Maíra Wambier / Alessandro Dourado Loguercio / Alessandra Reis / Osnara Maria Mongruel Gomes

Purpose: To compare the the loss of retention and color match of glass-ionomer cements (GIC) and resin-based composites (RC) in noncarious cervical lesions. Other secondary outcomes (surface texture, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries) were evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, and Cochrane. We included only randomized clinical trials. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE tool.

Results: A total of 1530 articles were identified, but only 19 reports remained for analysis, all of which were judged to possess unclear risk of bias. GIC showed higher retention rates in all follow-ups (1 to 3 years, p < 0.0001; at 5 years, p < 0.00001). No difference was observed for marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation and secondary caries in all follow-ups (p > 0.05). RC showed better color match than GIC only at 2 years (p = 0.03). Higher roughness was observed in GIC in all follow-ups (at 1 year p = 0.0003; at 3 years p = 0.0004). Quality of evidence was graded as moderate or low due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision in some outcomes.

Conclusion: The loss of retention of RMGIC/GIC was inferior to that of RC, but a higher roughness was observed in the RMGIC/GIC when compared to RC in all follow-ups of the clinical studies evaluated. In addition, the color match was better with RC only in the 2-year follow-up when compared to GIC. The quality of evidence was judged as moderate to low in these two outcomes.

Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
  © 2021 Quintessence Publishing Co Inc
 

Home | Subscription Services | Books | Journals | Multimedia | Events | Blog
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | About Us | Contact Us | Advertising | Help | Sitemap | Catalog