-
SADJ : Journal of the South African... Aug 2012Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) involves using only hand instruments for removing carious tooth tissue and then restoring the resulting cavity with an adhesive... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
INTRODUCTION
Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) involves using only hand instruments for removing carious tooth tissue and then restoring the resulting cavity with an adhesive restorative material.
OBJECTIVE
To answer the question as to whether, in patients with carious cavities of any class in primary and permanent teeth, ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (GIC) have a higher failure rate than amalgam restorations placed after drilling, in tooth cavities of the same size, dentition and follow-up period.
METHODS
Thirteen databases were searched for relevant trials up to January 2012. Hand-searching was performed for non indexed journals. References of included trials were checked. Prospective, clinical controlled trials with a followup period of at least one year were selected. The investi gated outcome was restoration failure. Meta-analysis was conducted and internal trial validity was assessed in-depth.
RESULTS
Twenty trials were accepted for review. The majority of the results show no differences between the types of intervention. The current evidence indicates that the failure rate of high-viscosity GIG/ART restorations is not higher than, but is similar to that of conventional amalgam fillings after periods longer than six years. There is a risk that these results are affected by bias and confirmation by further trials is recommended.
Topics: Bias; Dental Amalgam; Dental Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; Dental Restoration Failure; Dental Restoration, Permanent; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Viscosity
PubMed: 23951787
DOI: No ID Found -
European Archives of Paediatric... Oct 2022To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the...
PURPOSE
To systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development.
METHODS
Four electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment.
RESULTS
After identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4-2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0-2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies.
CONCLUSION
Considering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed.
Topics: Child; Humans; Tooth, Deciduous; Dental Materials; Dental Caries; Glass Ionomer Cements; Composite Resins; Treatment Outcome; Dental Restoration, Permanent
PubMed: 36056991
DOI: 10.1007/s40368-022-00744-4 -
The Open Dentistry Journal 2015Traditionally, resin composite restorations are claimed by reviews of the dental literature as being superior to glass-ionomer fillings in terms of restoration failures...
PURPOSE
Traditionally, resin composite restorations are claimed by reviews of the dental literature as being superior to glass-ionomer fillings in terms of restoration failures in posterior permanent teeth. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the clinical question, whether conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer restorations, in patients with single and/or multi-surface cavities in posterior permanent teeth, have indeed a higher failure rate than direct hybrid resin composite restorations.
METHODS
Eight databases were searched until December 02, 2013. Trials were assessed for bias risks, in-between datasets heterogeneity and statistical sample size power. Effects sizes were computed and statistically compared. A total of 55 citations were identified through systematic literature search. From these, 46 were excluded. No trials related to high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus resin composite restorations for direct head-to-head comparison were found. Three trials related to high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus amalgam and three trials related to resin composite versus amalgam restorations could be included for adjusted indirect comparison, only.
RESULTS
The available evidence suggests no difference in the failure rates between both types of restoration beyond the play of chance, is limited by lack of head-to-head comparisons and an insufficient number of trials, as well as by high bias and in-between-dataset heterogeneity risk. The current clinical evidence needs to be regarded as too poor in order to justify superiority claims regarding the failure rates of both restoration types. Sufficiently large-sized, parallel-group, randomised control trials with high internal validity are needed, in order to justify any clinically meaningful judgment to this topic.
PubMed: 26962372
DOI: 10.2174/1874210601509010438