High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement or composite resin for restorations in posterior permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analyses

Lisiane Cribari; Luciano Madeira; Renata B R Roeder; Rander M Macedo; Leticia M Wambier; Thiago S Porto; Carla C Gonzaga; Marina R Kaizer

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104629

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement or composite resin for restorations in posterior permanent teeth? A systematic review and meta-analyses

J Dent. 2023 Oct:137:104629. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104629. Epub 2023 Jul 26.

Authors

Lisiane Cribari¹, Luciano Madeira¹, Renata B R Roeder¹, Rander M Macedo¹, Leticia M Wambier¹, Thiago S Porto², Carla C Gonzaga¹, Marina R Kaizer³

Affiliations

¹ School of Dentistry, Universidade Positivo, 5300 Professor Pedro Viriato Parigot de Souza Street, Curitiba, PR 81280-330, Brazil.
² Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Iowa College of Dentistry, 801 Newton Rd, Iowa City, IA 52242, United States.
³ School of Dentistry, Universidade Positivo, 5300 Professor Pedro Viriato Parigot de Souza Street, Curitiba, PR 81280-330, Brazil. Electronic address: marinakaizer@gmail.com.

PMID: 37499738
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104629

Abstract

Objectives: Answer the PICO question: Do class I and II posterior restorations in permanent teeth placed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HV-GIC) fail more than composite resin (CR) restorations?

Data: The study was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42020138290). Randomized and controlled clinical trials, comparing the performance of HV-GIC and CR in load bearing cavities of posterior permanent teeth were included. Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE were used to assess the quality and certainty of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed for clinical outcomes on USPHS and FDI criteria for 12-, 24- and 36-months follow-ups.

Sources: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science were last searched on April 2, 2022, without language or date restrictions. Reference lists of primary studies and their related article link in PubMed were manually searched.

Study selection: Ten studies were included, while data from 8 were used for the meta-analyses. A total of 849 HV-GIC and 800 CR restorations were followed. The primary outcome was the fracture/retention of the restoration, with a comparable performance for both materials on all follow-ups. The 36 months follow-up for class I restorations (longest) showed risk difference of -0,00 (95%CI -0,03 to 0,03; p = 0,98) and no heterogeneity (p = 0,98, I²=0%). The certainty of the evidence is moderate, as all included studies were at an uncertain risk of bias.

Conclusions: HV-GIC and CR presented comparable clinical performance in posterior permanent teeth up to 36 months. HV-GIV wear in class I restorations followed by 24 months was the only poorer result compared to CR.

Clinical significance: Conservative load bearing cavities in permanent posterior teeth can be restored with HV-GIC with comparable clinical performance to CR expected at least up to 3 years. HV-GIC is a valuable direct restorative option for posterior teeth in high caries risk patients, in which CR is frequently associated with failure.

Keywords: Clinical performance; Composite resin; Glass ionomer cement; Permanent dentition.

Publication types

Meta-Analysis
Systematic Review
Review

MeSH terms

Composite Resins / therapeutic use
Dental Caries* / drug therapy
Dental Restoration, Permanent
Dentition, Permanent
Glass Ionomer Cements* / therapeutic use
Humans
Viscosity

Substances

Glass Ionomer Cements
Composite Resins