Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

Andersson-Wenckert, Ingrid; Sunnegårdh-Grönberg, Karin

doi:10.1080/00016350600788245

Cited by 19 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since there was no randomized clinical trial comparing GIC and CR restorations, indirect comparisons by means of a mixed treatment comparisons meta-analysis were carried out. The pair-wise comparisons of GIC vs. RMGIC 21 and CR vs. RMGIC 19,20 showed higher risk of failure for GIC compared to CR. This finding is in line with a retrospective study with 4 years of follow-up that found that CR restorations in primary teeth presented lower failure rate than GIC ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There were six RCTs using parallel groups, 15,16,17,18,19,20 one RCT 21 using split-mouth design in most samples and ten RCTs using split-mouth for all samples. 14,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30 The follow-up period ranged from 12 to 60 months; however, 47.06% of the studies had 24 months of follow-up.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…14,15,16,17,20,22,23,29,30 Three clinical studies compared AM and CR, 22,23,24 AM and CP, 17,27,28 or RMGIC, CP and CR restorations 14,15,30 . CR and RMGIC, 19,20 or CP and CR 16,29 were investigated by two different studies. There was only one article that compared restorations performed with GIC and RMGIC, 21 AM and GIC, 25 AM and RMGIC, 18 and CP and GIC.…”

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Six studies did not describe the method used to generate the random sequence, [17][18][19][23][24][25] leading to unclear risk of bias in this domain. Moreover, all studies had unclear risk of bias regarding the allocation concealment.…”

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of the Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Risk Of Biasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Two of the 4 restorative intervention studies assessed permanent dentition caries 1,3 ; 2 assessed primary dentition caries. 2,4 …”

Section: Main Outcome Measurementioning

confidence: 99%

Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RM-GIC) may Provide Greater Caries Preventive Effect Compared with Composite Resin, but High-Quality Studies are Needed

Pendrys

2011

Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Rm-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review

Yengopal

Mickenautsch

2011

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation

Abstract: Vitremer and Tetric Flow showed no significant difference concerning clinical durability at 2 years when used as class II restoratives in primary molars. Both materials demonstrated acceptable clinical results.

Cited by 19 publications

References 16 publications

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Cement (RM-GIC) may Provide Greater Caries Preventive Effect Compared with Composite Resin, but High-Quality Studies are Needed

Caries-preventive effect of resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (Rm-GIC) versus composite resin: a quantitative systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About