-
Journal of Dentistry Oct 2022To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations on preventing new caries in primary or permanent dentitions compared with other types of restorations.
DATA
Randomized controlled clinical trials evaluating caries experience increment or caries incidence in patients with GIC restorations, including conventional GIC (CGIC) and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC) restorations, were included.
SOURCES
A systematic search of publications in English was conducted in PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus databases.
STUDY SELECTION/RESULTS
This review included 10 studies reporting caries preventive effect of GIC restorations and selected 5 studies for meta-analysis. Patients with GIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with other restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.67, 95% CI:0.55-0.82, p < 0.0001]. Patients with CGIC restorations showed lower caries incidence compared with amalgam restorations [RR=0.57, 95% CI:0.43-0.76, p = 0.0001] and RMGIC restorations [RR=0.70, 95% CI:0.56-0.87, p = 0.002], but no statistical difference with composite resin restorations [RR=0.73, 95% CI:0.51-1.04, p = 0.08] in primary dentition. Patients with RMGIC restorations showed no statistical differences of caries incidence compared with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentition [RR=0.83, 95% CI:0.56-1.22, p = 0.33].
CONCLUSIONS
GIC restorations presented a better preventive effect on new caries than other restorations did in primary and permanent dentitions. CGIC restorations presented a better caries preventive effect on new caries than RMGIC and amalgam restorations in primary dentitions did. RMGIC restorations showed similar preventing effect on new caries with composite resin restorations in primary and permanent dentitions.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
This review affirmed the potential of GIC in preventing new caries development in the dentition.
Topics: Acrylic Resins; Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Caries Susceptibility; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Silicon Dioxide
PubMed: 36038075
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104272 -
Dental Materials : Official Publication... Nov 2004Internal and external bleaching procedures utilizing 3-35% hydrogen peroxide solutions or hydrogen peroxide releasing agents, such as carbamide peroxide or sodium... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
Internal and external bleaching procedures utilizing 3-35% hydrogen peroxide solutions or hydrogen peroxide releasing agents, such as carbamide peroxide or sodium perborate, can be used for whitening of teeth. The purpose of the review article was to summarize and discuss the available information concerning the effects of peroxide releasing bleaching agents on dental restorative materials and restorations.
SOURCES
Information from all original scientific full papers or reviews listed in PubMed or ISI Web of Science (search term: bleaching AND (composite OR amalgam OR glass ionomer OR compomer OR resin OR alloy) were included in the review.
DATA
Existing literature reveals that bleaching therapies may have a negative effect on physical properties, marginal integrity, enamel and dentin bond strength, and color of restorative materials as investigated in numerous in vitro studies. However, there are no reports in literature indicating that bleaching may exert a negative impact on existing restorations requiring renewal of the restorations under clinical conditions.
CONCLUSION
Bleaching may exert a negative influence on restorations and restorative materials. Advice is provided based on the current literature to minimize the impact of bleaching therapies on restorative materials and restorations.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Amalgam; Dental Bonding; Dental Leakage; Dental Materials; Dental Porcelain; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dentin Sensitivity; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Methylmethacrylates; Peroxides; Tooth Bleaching; Zinc Oxide-Eugenol Cement
PubMed: 15451241
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.04.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2016Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Root canal therapy is a sequence of treatments involving root canal cleaning, shaping, decontamination and obturation. It is conventionally performed through a hole drilled into the crown of the affected tooth, namely orthograde root canal therapy. For teeth that cannot be treated with orthograde root canal therapy, or for which it has failed, retrograde root filling, which seals the root canal from the root apex, is a good alternative. Many materials, such as amalgam, zinc oxide eugenol and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), are generally used. Since none meets all the criteria an ideal material should possess, selecting the most efficacious material is of utmost importance.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of different materials used for retrograde filling in children and adults for whom retrograde filling is necessary in order to save the tooth.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 13 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 13 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 13 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 13 September 2016); LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 13 September 2016); and OpenSIGLE (1980 to 2005). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (in Chinese, 1978 to 20 September 2016); VIP (in Chinese, 1989 to 20 September 2016); China National Knowledge Infrastructure (in Chinese, 1994 to 20 September 2016); and Sciencepaper Online (in Chinese, to 20 September 2016). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We selected randomised controlled trials (RCTs) only that compared different retrograde filling materials, with reported success rate that was assessed by clinical or radiological methods for which the follow-up period was at least 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors extracted data independently and in duplicate. Original trial authors were contacted for any missing information. Two review authors independently carried out risk of bias assessments for each eligible study following Cochrane methodological guidelines.
MAIN RESULTS
We included six studies (916 participants with 988 teeth) reported in English. All the studies had high risk of bias. The six studies examined five different comparisons, including MTA versus intermediate restorative material (IRM), MTA versus super ethoxybenzoic acid cement (Super-EBA), Super-EBA versus IRM, dentine-bonded resin composite versus glass ionomer cement and glass ionomer cement versus amalgam. There was therefore little pooling of data and very little evidence for each comparison.There is weak evidence of little or no difference between MTA and IRM at the first year of follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.97 to 1.22; 222 teeth; quality of evidence: low). Insufficient evidence of a difference between MTA and IRM on success rate at the second year of follow-up (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89 to 1.25; 86 teeth, 86 participants; quality of evidence: very low). All the other outcomes were based on a single study. There is insufficient evidence of any difference between MTA and Super-EBA at the one-year follow-up (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.10; 192 teeth, 192 participants; quality of evidence: very low), and only weak evidence indicating there might be a small increase in success rate at the one-year follow-up in favour of IRM compared to Super-EBA (RR 0.90; 95% CI: 0.80 to 1.01; 194 teeth; quality of evidence: very low). There was also insufficient and weak evidence to show that dentine-bonded resin composite might be a better choice for increasing retrograde filling success rate compared to glass ionomer cement at the one-year follow-up (RR 2.39; 95% CI: 1.60 to 3.59; 122 teeth, 122 participants; quality of evidence: very low). And there was insufficient evidence of a difference between glass ionomer cement and amalgam at both the one-year (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86 to 1.12; 105 teeth; quality of evidence: very low) and five-year follow-ups (RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.20; 82 teeth; quality of evidence: very low).None of these studies reported an adverse event.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Based on the present limited evidence, there is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusion as to the benefits of any one material over another. We conclude that more high-quality RCTs are required.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Amalgam; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Hydroxybenzoate Ethers; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Resin Cements; Root Canal Filling Materials; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 27991646
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005517.pub2 -
Journal of the American Dental... Aug 2020The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The best treatment option for large caries in permanent posterior teeth is still a matter of uncertainty in dental literature. The authors conducted a network meta-analysis to address the challenges related to rehabilitation of these teeth.
TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED
The authors selected prospective and retrospective studies that compared at least 2 different treatment alternatives for permanent teeth with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up. The authors searched databases from MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science in October 2019 without language or year of publication restrictions.
RESULTS
From 11,263 studies identified, 43 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Only 13 studies were randomized controlled trials and were classified as low risk of bias. Gold (annual failure rate of 0.29%) and metal ceramic (annual failure rate of 0.52%) crowns performed better for indirect restorations and direct resin composite performed better for direct restorations (annual failure rate of 2.19%). The most substantial comparisons were between feldspathic and glass ceramics, followed by direct resin composite and amalgam; there were no statistically significant differences between these interventions. Results of the pairwise meta-analysis showed mainly glass ionomer as significantly more prone to failure than amalgam and direct composite resin.
CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
Reference standard direct and indirect materials except for glass ionomer can be used for restorations of large posterior caries.
Topics: Composite Resins; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Prospective Studies; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 32718491
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2020.05.006 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2014Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Amalgam is a common filling material for posterior teeth, as with any restoration amalgams have a finite life-span. Traditionally replacement was the ideal approach to treat defective amalgam restorations, however, repair offers an alternative more conservative approach where restorations are only partially defective. Repairing a restoration has the potential of taking less time and may sometimes be performed without the use of local anaesthesia hence it may be less distressing for a patient when compared with replacement. Repair of amalgam restorations is often more conservative of the tooth structure than replacement.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effects of replacing (with amalgam) versus repair (with amalgam) in the management of defective amalgam dental restorations in permanent molar and premolar teeth.
SEARCH METHODS
For the identification of studies relevant to this review we searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 5 August 2013); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 5 August 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 5 August 2013); BIOSIS via Web of Knowledge (1969 to 5 August 2013); Web of Science (1945 to 5 August 2013) and OpenGrey (to 5 August 2013). Researchers, experts and organisations known to be involved in this field were contacted in order to trace unpublished or ongoing studies. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: randomised controlled trial (including split-mouth studies), involving replacement and repair of amalgam restorations in adults with a defective restoration in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed titles and abstracts for each article identified by the searches in order to decide whether the article was likely to be relevant. Full papers were obtained for relevant articles and both review authors studied these. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were to be followed for data synthesis.
MAIN RESULTS
The search strategy retrieved 201 potentially eligible studies after de-duplication. After examination of the titles and abstracts, full texts of the relevant studies were retrieved but none of these met the inclusion criteria of the review.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There are no published randomised controlled trials relevant to this review question. There is therefore a need for methodologically sound randomised controlled trials that are reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement (www.consort-statement.org/). Further research also needs to explore qualitatively the views of patients on repairing versus replacement and investigate themes around pain, distress and anxiety, time and costs.
Topics: Adult; Dental Amalgam; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Retreatment
PubMed: 24510713
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005970.pub3 -
Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral... Nov 2004We sought to systematically review the literature related to oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and amalgam restorations. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
We sought to systematically review the literature related to oral lichenoid lesions (OLLs) and amalgam restorations.
STUDY DESIGN
Cohort and case-controlled studies (no randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials available) were reviewed with respect to inclusion criteria and data on patients with OLLs, treatment interventions, and the measurement of outcomes.
RESULTS
Fourteen cohort and 5 case-controlled trials met the criteria. The study population consisted of 1158 patients (27% male and 73% female; age range, 23-79 years). From 16% to 91% of patients had positive patch test results for at least 1 mercury compound. Of 1158 patients, 636 had to have their restorations replaced. The follow-up period ranged from 2 months to 9 1/2 years. Complete healing ranged from 37.5% to 100%. The greatest improvements were seen in lesions in close contact with amalgam.
CONCLUSIONS
Protocols must be standardized to obtain valid results. The replacement of amalgam restorations can result in the resolution or improvement of OLLs. Patch testing seems to be of limited value. The topographic relationship between an OLL and an amalgam restoration is a useful--but not conclusive--marker.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Dental Amalgam; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Dermatitis, Contact; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Lichenoid Eruptions; Male; Mercury Compounds; Middle Aged; Patch Tests; Retreatment; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 15529127
DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.12.027 -
Revista Brasileira de Ginecologia E... Dec 2022The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
OBJECTIVE
The present review aimed to synthesize the evidence regarding mercury (Hg) exposure and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP).
DATA SOURCES
The PubMed, BVS/LILACS, SciELO and UFRJ's Pantheon Digital Library databases were systematically searched through June 2021.
STUDY SELECTION
Observational analytical articles, written in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, without time restriction.
DATA COLLECTION
We followed the PICOS strategy, and the methodological quality was assessed using the Downs and Black checklist.
DATA SYNTHESIS
We retrieved 77 articles, of which 6 met the review criteria. They comprised 4,848 participants, of which 809 (16.7%) had HDP and 4,724 (97.4%) were environmentally exposed to Hg (fish consumption and dental amalgam). Mercury biomarkers evaluated were blood (four studies) and urine (two studies). Two studies found a positive association between Hg and HDP in the group with more exposure, and the other four did not present it. The quality assessment revealed three satisfactory and three good-rated studies (mean: 19.3 ± 1.6 out 28 points). The absence or no proper adjustment for negative confounding factor, such as fish consumption, was observed in five studies.
CONCLUSION
We retrieved only six studies, although Hg is a widespread toxic metal and pregnancy is a period of heightened susceptibility to environmental threats and cardiovascular risk. Overall, our review showed mixed results, with two studies reporting a positive association in the group with more exposure. However, due to the importance of the subject, additional studies are needed to elucidate the effects of Hg on HDP, with particular attention to adjusting negative confounding.
Topics: Humans; Pregnancy; Female; Animals; Mercury; Hypertension, Pregnancy-Induced; Maternal Exposure; Biomarkers
PubMed: 36580940
DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-1760215 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Mar 2007To review the available literature on the durability of amalgam when used to restore interproximal (class II) cavities in primary molars. (Review)
Review
AIM
To review the available literature on the durability of amalgam when used to restore interproximal (class II) cavities in primary molars.
METHODS
The literature was searched using OVID Medline and EMBASE from 1966 to 2006. The search plan of the electronic databases included: "dental amalgam or amalgam or alloy" and "deciduous or primary or milk or first or baby or natal" or "tooth or teeth or dentition" and "permanent restorations or permanent fillings". Relevant prospective clinical studies were reviewed by 2 reviewers against a set of defined criteria. Papers were graded according to the number of criteria met as A = >90%, B1 = 75%, B2 = 50% and C = <50%.
RESULTS
No study achieved a Grade A; four studies rated Grade B1 and thirteen B2. Seven studies were rated Grade C. A wide range of failure rates for amalgam were reported from 0 - 58%. However, in the context of a controlled clinical environment in a developed country the failure rate varied between 0 and 22%.
CONCLUSION
Amalgam remains an appropriate choice of material for the restoration of the primary dentition. However, factors other than durability are increasingly influencing its use in clinical practice.
Topics: Dental Amalgam; Dental Cavity Preparation; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration Wear; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Molar; Survival Analysis; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 17394885
DOI: 10.1007/BF03262564 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Childhood caries (tooth decay) consists of a form of tooth decay that affects the milk teeth (also known as baby or primary teeth) of children. This may range from tooth decay in a single tooth to rampant caries affecting all the teeth in the mouth. Primary teeth in young children are vital to their development and every effort should be made to retain these teeth for as long as is possible. Dental fillings or restorations have been used as an intervention to repair these damaged teeth. Oral health professionals need to make astute decisions about the type of restorative (filling) material they choose to best manage their patients with childhood caries. This decision is by no means an easy one as remarkable advances in dental restorative materials over the last 10 years has seen the introduction of a multitude of different filling materials claiming to provide the best performance in terms of durability, aesthetics, symptom relief, etc when placed in the mouth. This review sought to compare the different types of dental materials against each other for the same outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this review was to compare the outcomes (including pain relief, survival and aesthetics) for restorative materials used to treat caries in the primary dentition in children. Additionally, the restoration of teeth was compared with extraction and no treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
Electronic searches of the following databases were undertaken: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (up to January 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue1); MEDLINE (1966 to January 2009); EMBASE (1996 to January 2009); SIGLE (1976 to 2004); and conference proceedings on early childhood caries, restorative materials for paediatric dentistry, and material sciences conferences for dental materials used for children's dentistry (1990 to 2008). The searches attempted to identify all relevant studies irrespective of language.Additionally, the reference lists from articles of eligible papers were searched, handsearching of key journals was undertaken, and personal communication with authors and manufacturers of dental materials was initiated to increase the pool of suitable trials (both published and unpublished) for inclusion into this review.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-randomised controlled trials with a minimum period of 6 months follow up were included. Both parallel group and split-mouth study designs were considered. The unit of randomisation could be the individual, group (school, school class, etc), tooth or tooth pair. Included studies had a drop-out rate of less than 30%. The eligible trials consisted of young children (children less than 12 years) with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition which was symptomatic or symptom free at the start of the study.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Disagreements were resolved by consultation with a third review author. Authors were contacted for missing or unclear information regarding randomisation, allocation sequence, presentation of data, etc. A quality assessment of included trials was undertaken. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed for data analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
Only three studies were included in this review. The Fuks 1999 study assessed the clinical performance of aesthetic crowns versus conventional stainless steel crowns in 11 children who had at least two mandibular primary molars that required a crown restoration. The outcomes assessed at 6 months included gingival health (odds ratio (OR) 0.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 8.32), restoration failure (OR 3.29; 95% CI 0.12 to 89.81), occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity. The odds ratios for occlusion, proximal contact and marginal integrity could not be estimated as no events were recorded at the 6-month evaluation. The Donly 1999 split-mouth study compared a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) with amalgam over a 36-month period. Forty pairs of Class II restorations were placed in 40 patients (21 males; 19 females; mean age 8 years +/- 1.17; age range 6 to 9 years). Although the study period was 3 years (36 months), only the 6- and 12-month results are reported due to the loss to follow up of patients being greater than 30% for the 24- and 36-month data. Marks 1999a recruited 30 patients (age range 4 to 9 years; mean age 6.7 years, standard deviation 2.3) with one pair of primary molars that required a Class II restoration. The materials tested were Dyract (compomer) and Tytin (amalgam). Loss to follow up at 24 and 36 months was 20% and 43% respectively. This meant that only the 24-month data were useable. For all of the outcomes compared in all three studies, there were no significant differences in clinical performance between the materials tested.No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with childhood caries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
It was disappointing that only three trials that compared three different types of materials were suitable for inclusion into this review. There were no significant differences found in all three trials for all of the outcomes assessed. Well designed, randomised controlled trials comparing the different types of filling materials for similar outcomes are urgently needed in dentistry. There was insufficient evidence from the three included trials to make any recommendations about which filling material to use.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Compomers; Composite Resins; Crowns; Dental Alloys; Dental Amalgam; Dental Caries; Dental Materials; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 27748505
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004483.pub3 -
European Archives of Paediatric... Jun 2010A large number of studies concerning the use of compomers in class II cavities in the primary dentition already exist, but the variety of the research perspectives is... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
A large number of studies concerning the use of compomers in class II cavities in the primary dentition already exist, but the variety of the research perspectives is even bigger.
AIM
This study therefore intends to abridge and evaluate the existing research through a systematic literature review.
METHODS
In order to gather relevant articles an extended literature research was carried out. The criteria for the evaluation of the resulting articles were based on the article of Kilpatrick and Neumann [2007].
RESULTS
According to the subject of the research, the articles were divided into the following groups: PAM-C; PAM-C and amalgam; PAM-C and GIC; PAM-C and hybrid composites; PAM-C and pre-treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings lead to the conclusion that PAM-C can be an alternative to other restorative materials in the primary dentition in class II cavities, except in the case of teeth with pulpectomies or pulpotomies. The placement of compomers takes longer than placing amalgam, but the procedure consists of fewer steps compared to composites. However, patient-compliance remains essential.
Topics: Child; Child, Preschool; Compomers; Dental Care for Children; Dental Caries; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Humans; Outcome Assessment, Health Care; Tooth, Deciduous
PubMed: 20507807
DOI: 10.1007/BF03262725