Resin-modified glass ionomers versus compomers - cariostatic effect
Midentistry review group
Abstract
The combined results of all identified trials indicate no difference between both materials.
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/mic11A9.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Resin-modified glass ionomers versus compomers - cariostatic effect. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2009; 2: RV00120090105.
This version first published online: January 30, 2009
Last revised: May 29, 2010
Objectives
To assess whether in patients with comparable caries risk, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) has a better cariostatic effect than compomer.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: January 01, 2009 using the terms: ((("Dental Caries"[Mesh] OR "Dental Caries Susceptibility"[Mesh] OR "Root Caries"[Mesh])) AND "Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh]) AND "Compomers"[Mesh]. Reference check of included articles.
Inclusion criteria
All prospective, 2-arm, trials with relevance to the review question; published in English; containing computable (dichotomous or continuous) data for both, test- and control group.
Data collection and analysis
17 trials were selected. Of these, 12 were traced and included for assessment of internal validity and for data extraction.
Main results
From the 12 trials the following independent datasets were extracted: 10 datasets from 1 in-vitro trial on animal tissue; 4 datasets from 1 in-situ trial on animal tissue, 24 datasets from 4 in-vitro trials on human tissue; 16 datasets from 1 in-situ trial on human tissue and 14 datasets from 5 randomized control trials. All datasets differed substantially in aspects with potential influence on study outcome (= clinical and methodological heterogeneity). For that reason it was not possible to combine datasets for meta-analysis. Instead datasets were sub grouped per outcome measure and analysed individually. From the in-vitro/in-situ trial results following hypotheses could be formulated: H1: Both materials (RMGIC and Compomer) have generally similar caries preventive properties (with exception of individual products see H2 - 4); H2: The resin-based GICs Fuji II LC, Vitremer and Photac are more caries preventive than the compomer Dyract; H3: The compomer Compoglass F is more caries preventive than resin-based GIC Vitremer; H4: The resin-based GIC Vitremer is more caries preventive than the compomer F2000. The results from all 14 datasets of the randomized control trials (RCT) show no difference between both types of materials. This seems to confirm the hypothesis (H1) that both materials have generally the same caries preventive effect. However, the RCT results do not confirm hypothesis H2 and provided no data for testing the hypotheses H3 and H4.
Authors' conclusions
The evidence, so far, suggests no difference between resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and compomers in their cariostatic effect.
