Glass-ionomer cement (GIC) versus resin-modified GIC - 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 no difference between both types of material.
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/mic11D4.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Glass-ionomer cement (GIC) versus resin-modified GIC - retention. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2008; 1: RV01620081512.
This version first published online: December 30, 2008
Last revised: December 30, 2008
Objectives
To assess whether in cavities of comparable size and tooth location, Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) have a better retention than resin-modified GIC.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: December 15, 2008 using the terms: "Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh] AND resin modified AND ("Dental Restoration, Permanent"[Mesh] OR "Dental Restoration, Temporary"[Mesh])AND material retention. Reference check of included articles.
Inclusion criteria
All prospective, 2-arm, in-vivo or in-situ randomized/quasi-randomized control trials including human tissue with relevance to review question; published in English; containing computable (dichotomous) data for both, test- and control group.
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 4 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 this trial resin-modified GIC was compared with a low-viscosity (LV-) GIC. No statistically significant difference was observed.
Authors' conclusions
The available evidence shows no difference between both materials.
