Glass-ionomer cement versus amalgam - retention
Midentistry review group
*Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
The combined results of all identified trials indicate higher retention of amalgam than low-viscosity glass-ionomer cement for Class I and II restorations.
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/mic11D3.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Glass-ionomer cement versus amalgam - retention. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2009; 2: RV00420090119.
This version first published online: January 30, 2009
Last revised: January 30, 2009
Objectives
To assess whether in cavities of comparable size and tooth location, Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) have a better retention than amalgam.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: January 19, 2009 using the terms: ("Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] OR "glass ionomer "[Substance Name])) AND "Dental Amalgam"[Mesh]. Reference check of included articles.
Inclusion criteria
All prospective, 2-arm, trials with relevance to review question; published in English; containing computable (dichotomous or continuous) data for both, test- and control group. Articles reporting on GIC based Tunnel- or Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations were not included.
Data collection and analysis
One single trial was selected, traced and included for assessment of internal validity and for data extraction.
Main results
From the single trials 3 independent dichotomous datasets were extracted. The datasets differed in clinical and methodological aspects (heterogeneity) that may have an influence on the established success rate. In order to address heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not conducted and the results of the datasets analysed and reported separately. The results of the separate datasets show that amalgam has higher retention in Class I and II cavities than low-viscosity GIC. No difference was found between both materials in Class III & V cavities.
Authors' conclusions
The available evidence shows a higher retention of amalgam than low-viscosity GIC for Class I and II restorations.
