One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars

Baba, Merve Gok; Kırzıoğlu, Zühal; Ceyhan, Derya

doi:10.1111/adj.12802

Cited by 7 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…None of the studies were at high risk of bias in selection of the reported results. In 48.3% (n = 14) of studies the risk of bias was rated as “unclear” because of incomplete reporting of results for pre-specified outcome criteria (Alaki et al 2020 ; Deepa and Shobha 2010 ; Dermata et al 2018 ; El-Housseiny et al 2019 ; Ertugrul et al 2010 ; Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Hesse et al 2016 ; Hse and Wei 1997 ; Konde et al 2012 ; Lenzi et al 2017 ; Moura et al 2020 ; Olegario et al 2019 , 2020 ; Welbury et al 1991 ). The rest of the included studies reported the results completely (51.7%, n = 15).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The clinical performance of conventional (GIC), metal-reinforced (MRGIC), resin-modified (RMGIC), or high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements (HVGIC) was assessed in primary dentition in 9 included randomised controlled clinical trials (Akman and Tosun 2020 ; Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Dermata et al 2018 ; Dutta et al 2001 ; El-Housseiny et al 2019 ; Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Kilpatrick et al 1995 ; Kupietzky et al 2019 ; Welbury et al 1991 ). The comparators chosen were amalgam (Dutta et al 2001 ; Welbury et al 1991 ), compomer (Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Gok Baba et al 2021 ), composite resin (Akman and Tosun 2020 ; Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Dermata et al 2018 ; El-Housseiny et al 2019 ; Kupietzky et al 2019 ), bulk-fill composite resin (Akman and Tosun 2020 ), another type of glass-ionomer cement (Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Kilpatrick et al 1995 ), and glass carbomer (El-Housseiny et al 2019 ). One trial solely compared glass-ionomer cements (Kilpatrick et al 1995 ).…”

Section: Reported Outcomes For the Restorative Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One trial solely compared glass-ionomer cements (Kilpatrick et al 1995 ). If reported, isolation was achieved by use of cotton rolls in 3 studies (Akman and Tosun 2020 ; Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Welbury et al 1991 ) or by rubber dam in 4 studies (Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Dermata et al 2018 ; El-Housseiny et al 2019 ; Kupietzky et al 2019 ). The follow-up of included studies ranged from 1 to 5 years.…”

Section: Reported Outcomes For the Restorative Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results for HVGIC showed a high variation. Whereas Akman & Tosun ( 2020 ) reported an acceptable clinical performance of HVGIC for Class-II restorations after 1 year (Akman and Tosun 2020 ), Class-II restorations with compomer and composite resin outperformed HVGIC in two other trials after 1–3 years (Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Kupietzky et al 2019 ). MRGIC presented the highest failure rate in Class-II restorations with loss of anatomical form and marginal integrity over time (Kilpatrick et al 1995 ).…”

Section: Reported Outcomes For the Restorative Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Seven of the included randomised controlled clinical trials investigated the clinical effectiveness of compomer restorations in primary teeth (Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Ehlers et al 2019 ; Ertugrul et al 2010 ; Gok Baba et al 2021 ; Hse and Wei 1997 ; Kavvadia et al 2004 ; Santamaria et al 2017 ). The following restorative materials were selected as comparators in these trials: amalgam (Kavvadia et al 2004 ), RMGIC (Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ), HVGIC (Gok Baba et al 2021 ), another compomer (Ertugrul et al 2010 ), composite resin (Alves dos Santos et al 2010 ; Hse and Wei 1997 ), bulk-fill composite resin (Ehlers et al 2019 ), and alternative caries management approaches (Santamaria et al 2017 ). In the majority of trials, Class-II restorations were examined.…”

Section: Reported Outcomes For the Restorative Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review

Amend

Boutsiouki

Bekes³

et al. 2022

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development. Methods Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Results Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1–28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2–37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6–16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9–16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9–25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0–14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0–19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0–16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses. Conclusions Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.

show abstract