Compomer versus glass ionomer cement - cytotoxicity
Midentistry review group
*Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
No conclusive evidence found.
This abstract is prepared and maintained by Midentistry, currently published in The MI Compendium, 3rd edition, Copyright © 2009 Midentistry. The full data of this review is available in http://www.midentistry.com/secure-folder/content/3/fur0202.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Compomer versus glass ionomer cement - cytotoxicity. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: RV00120101307.
This version first published online: January 13, 2010
Last revised: January 13, 2010
Objectives
To assess whether compomers in deep cavities of primary teeth are more pulp friendly than conventional GIC.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: January 8, 2010 using the terms: ((("Compomers"[Mesh] AND "Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh]) OR "glass ionomer "[Substance Name]) ) AND "Dental Pulp"[Mesh]
Inclusion criteria
All progressive 2-arm in-vitro, in-situ or in-vivo trials; with relevance to review question; published in English.
Exclusion criteria:
Not all entered subjects were accounted for at the end of the trial; subjects of both groups not followed up the same way; no randomized, quasi-randomized controlled study design for in-situ and in-vivo trials; contains no computable data.
Data collection and analysis
The systematic literature search found 10 articles of which 3 in-vitro trials were identified to be in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 2 trials were accepted for data extraction. From the reviewed trials 6 individual datasets were extracted and analyzed.
Main results
All datasets showed clinical and methodological heterogeneity and therefore could not be combined using meta-analysis. As only laboratory/in-vitro trials were identified, it is not possible to answer the review question on clinical basis. In addition, the results of the 6 (in-vitro) datasets are conflicting. Although a higher number of viable cells 2 days after exposure to Compomer was found, as compared to GIC, the number of viable cells after 5 days was statistically significantly higher for GIC. The number of remaining active mitochondria was higher 2 and 5 days after Compomer exposure than after GIC exposure. No difference in the cell growth was found 2 days after exposure with either material.
Authors' conclusions
Further in-vitro trials are needed to clarify the current conflicting results. In order to answer the review question clinically, high quality randomized-control trials (RCT) are required.
