Resin-modified GIC versus compomer restorations - longevity in primary teeth
Midentistry review group
*** Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa
Abstract
There is no difference between both type of materials
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/fur0103.asp (ISBN: 0-620-34080-0)
This record should be cited as: Midentistry. Resin-modified GIC versus compomer restorations - longevity in primary teeth. Minim Interv Comp Database Syst Rev 2010; 1: RV00920102104
This version first published online: April 21, 2010
Last revised: April 21, 2010
Objectives
To assess whether restorations in primary teeth placed with compomers have a higher survival rate than restorations placed with RMGIC.
Search strategy
The trials were identified from a search of the PubMed database on: January 07, 2010 using the terms: ("(("Compomers"[Mesh] AND "Glass Ionomer Cements"[Mesh]) OR "glass ionomer "[Substance Name]) AND "Tooth, Deciduous"[Mesh]
Inclusion criteria
- relevant (comparing resin-modified GIC versus Compomers in primary teeth)
- 2-arm
- published in English
Data collection and analysis
In line with inclusion criteria, the systematic literature search identified 5 (one clinical and 4 laboratory) trials of which a total of 47 separate datasets (DS) could be extracted.
Main results and Authors' conclusions
From the 36 datasets of the single clinical trial, 34 extracted datasets showed no difference between both type of materials in terms of caries, wear, restoration fracture, tooth fracture, loss of material retention and endodontic complication after 7 years. The results of 2 datasets were in favor of compomer. These results were observed when restorations were placed after cavity conditioning. Without cavity conditioning the results of both materials were similar. The results from the 11 datasets of the laboratory trials are conflicting in terms of higher material shear bond strength to dentin. No difference was observed between both materials in terms of microleakage. Due to large methodological heterogeneity between trials, no meta-analysis was done. Quality assessment was conducted by 2 different reviewers using a structured checklist. Differences were resolved by discussion and consensus. During the assessment, randomization of the sequence allocation and concealment of the allocation was judged as inadequate since alternate use of both materials during the trial was reported. The reporting of assessor assignment (whether the assessor was a different person than the operator) was judged as unclear and the lack of reported blind outcome assessment was considered to be inadequate.
The overall clinical results show no difference between both type of materials after 7 years. The clinical result for loss of retention appears to be confirmed by conflicting laboratory data regarding material shear bond strength to dentin. It has to be noted that the available clinical results may be limited by potential selection and detection bias. Further high quality randomized control trials are needed to answer the review question more conclusively.
