Compomer versus resin-modified 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 © 2009-2010 Midentistry. The full data of this review is available in http://www.midentistry.com/secure-folder/content/3/fur0203.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Compomer versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement: cytotoxicity. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: RV00220101407.
This version first published online: January 14, 2010
Last revised: January 14, 2010
Objectives
To assess whether compomers in deep cavities of primary teeth are more pulp friendly than resin-modified glass ionomer cement.
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 4 in-vitro trials were identified to be in line with the inclusion criteria. Of these, 3 trials were accepted for data extraction. From the reviewed trials 14 individual datasets were extracted and analyzed.
Main results
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 14 (in-vitro) datasets are conflicting. Both type of materials appear to act cytotoxic on cells at various degrees. The strength of this effect appears to be depended on the individual chemical composition of each Compomer or RMGIC product and its subsequent ability to release toxic components after curing.
Authors' conclusions
Further in-vitro trials are needed to clarify wether Compomers and RMGIC differ in their cytotoxicity as such. In order to answer the review question clinically, high quality randomized-control trials (RCT) are required.
