Abstract:Sealing the margins of the composite resin restorations had no significant effect compared with the control groups, under the conditions of this study. Sealing the restorations substantially improved the marginal staining and marginal adaptation parameters, although by the tenth year they were similar to the group without intervention.
“…After duplicate removal, 138 articles remained; the title and abstract screening revealed fourteen articles of relevance. After full-text screening, four articles were excluded with reasons [ 9 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] (Table S1), and ten articles [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ] that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the present qualitative review. Figure 1 A flow diagram showing the process from identification to inclusion of the studies.…”
Objective
To summarize the available clinical evidence on the relative effectiveness of retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants (PFS) with that of flowable composites on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth when evaluated in clinical trials.
Sources
Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library for the identification of relevant studies, from their inception until February 2020 and an additional search was done with the reference lists of included articles.
Study selection
The review protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018112805). The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
Data
Ten articles were considered relevant for qualitative synthesis. The data extracted from two of the included articles showed statistically significant difference between the two materials based on their retention potential, of which one article favored superior retention of flowable composites and one article favored higher retention of PFS and the other eight studies showed no significant difference between the two materials.
Conclusion
The current review has shown evidence suggesting the effective retention of resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants and flowable composites when applied to prevent occlusal caries in permanent molars, however, this evidence is of low quality. Carefully designed long-term clinical trials are required to support the results of this review.
Clinical significance
This is an important topic that would be of significant interest in the field of preventive dentistry, where sealants are the primary recommended method to prevent caries. The clinical efficacy of sealants is directly linked to their potential to retain and this systematic review focuses on comparing the relative effectiveness of resin-based pit-and-fissure-sealants with flowable composites in permanent teeth.
“…After duplicate removal, 138 articles remained; the title and abstract screening revealed fourteen articles of relevance. After full-text screening, four articles were excluded with reasons [ 9 , 23 , 24 , 25 ] (Table S1), and ten articles [ 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 ] that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the present qualitative review. Figure 1 A flow diagram showing the process from identification to inclusion of the studies.…”
Objective
To summarize the available clinical evidence on the relative effectiveness of retention of resin-based pit and fissure sealants (PFS) with that of flowable composites on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth when evaluated in clinical trials.
Sources
Electronic searches were performed in PubMed and Cochrane Library for the identification of relevant studies, from their inception until February 2020 and an additional search was done with the reference lists of included articles.
Study selection
The review protocol followed the PRISMA guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018112805). The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
Data
Ten articles were considered relevant for qualitative synthesis. The data extracted from two of the included articles showed statistically significant difference between the two materials based on their retention potential, of which one article favored superior retention of flowable composites and one article favored higher retention of PFS and the other eight studies showed no significant difference between the two materials.
Conclusion
The current review has shown evidence suggesting the effective retention of resin-based pit-and-fissure sealants and flowable composites when applied to prevent occlusal caries in permanent molars, however, this evidence is of low quality. Carefully designed long-term clinical trials are required to support the results of this review.
Clinical significance
This is an important topic that would be of significant interest in the field of preventive dentistry, where sealants are the primary recommended method to prevent caries. The clinical efficacy of sealants is directly linked to their potential to retain and this systematic review focuses on comparing the relative effectiveness of resin-based pit-and-fissure-sealants with flowable composites in permanent teeth.
“…The result of this cohort of amalgam restorations are similar to that reported by Gordan et al, who studied sealed amalgam restorations over a seven-year period, 23 and comparable with Fernandez et al who studied the sealing of resin composite restorations for ten-years. 27 The trend in downgraded margin scores during the study may have been due to the normal degradation of the restoration in the oral environment or related to other variables not included in this study that may have involved other individual clinical characteristics, such as size and cavity design, occlusion and function, or other clinical features. This lack of confidence in pinpointing the effect of other potential variables is a limitation of the present study.…”
“…No passado, as decisões clínicas dos dentistas orientavam para que se realizasse a substituição da restauração de resina composta defeituosa, contudo, os princípios atuais de Odontologia minimamente invasiva encontram soluções conservadoras para restaurar defeitos pequenos e localizados. 20,30,39 Segundo Demarco et al 19 e Tovo et al, 24 apesar de atualmente as restaurações em resina composta apresentarem alta taxa de sobrevivência, dentistas ainda gastam uma quantidade significativa de tempo substituindo-as quando essas apresentam defeitos, o que contribui para o ciclo restaurador repetitivo. 30 Hickel et al 22 afirmam que se o reparo for aplicável, a consideração do custo-benefício é geralmente favorável, além de referir-se a uma abordagem minimamente invasiva.…”
Objetivo: Este estudo objetivou analisar os critérios USPHS e USPHS modificados e oferecer subsídios para a decisão clínica entre o reparo e a substituição das restaurações em resina composta. Material e Métodos: Utilizou-se um levantamento bibliográfico através do Portal de Periódicos CAPES, PubMed, Cochrane e Medline utilizando as seguintes palavras-chave: USPHS, avaliação clínica, resina composta, restauração dental permanente. A partir dessa pesquisa, foram selecionados trabalhos publicados entre 2000 e 2016. Resultados: Os estudos avaliados indicaram que os critérios mais prevalentes nas restaurações insatisfatórias são “cáries secundárias” e “perda da forma anatômica”. Além disso, a maioria dos estudos avaliados indica o reparo de restaurações com falhas pequenas e localizadas como estratégia para o aumento da longevidade das restaurações em resina composta. Conclusão: Os critérios USPHS auxiliam na correta decisão clínica entre substituição ou reparo de restaurações em resina composta. O reparo de compósitos é uma alternativa que deve ser realizada sempre que possível.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
