Caries preventive effect - glass ionomer versus resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) based fissure sealants
Mickenautsch S*, Yengopal V*, Bonecker M***, Leal SC**, Bezerra AC**, Oliveira LB****.
*Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
**School of Dentistry, University of Brasilia, Brasilia DF, Brazil
***Department of Orthodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Brazil
****São Leopoldo Mandic Research Center, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
No evidence could be found that either material is superior above the other as fissure sealant in the prevention of caries.
This record should be cited as: Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Bonecker M, Leal SC, Bezerra AC, Oliveira LB. Caries preventive effect - glass ionomer versus resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) based fissure sealants. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2008; 1: RV00920080805.
This version first published online: January 05, 2008
Last revised: August 05, 2008
Objectives
To compare the caries preventive effect of glass ionomer with RMGIC based fissure sealants.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of PubMed and LILACS databases on January 05, 2008 using the terms: (("Dental Caries"[Mesh] OR "Dental Caries Susceptibility"[Mesh] OR "Root Caries"[Mesh] OR "Tooth Demineralization"[Mesh]) AND ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "Cermet Cements"[Mesh]) AND "Pit and Fissure Sealants"[Mesh] AND Resin modified glass ionomer cement; cárie dentária; cimentos de ionômeros de vidro; selantes de fossas e fissuras and is updated regularly.
Inclusion criteria
Reviews and in vivo randomized, quasi-randomized trials published in English, Portuguese and Spanish.
Exclusion criteria for reviews
Lack of clear search strategy, key words and databases used, no clear inclusion and exclusion criteria for reviewed publications and includes no study-by-study critique table or discussion of study qualities
Exclusion criteria for trials
Insufficient description of randomization process; insufficient accounting for included subjects at the end of the study.
Data collection and analysis
The literature search did identify only one clinical trial in compliance with the broad inclusion criteria.
Main results
Its results (OR 0.87; CI 95% 0.48 - 1.58) indicate no difference in the caries preventive effect between conventional glass ionomer cement (low-viscosity) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement. No meta-analysis was possible. More studies are needed.
Authors' conclusions
No evidence could be found for either of the materials being superior above the other as fissure sealant in the prevention of caries. Further trials are needed.
