Survival of Adhesive Restorations for Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis of Clinical Trials

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the scientific evidence regarding the survival and clinical performance of adhesive materials for primary molars, comparing composite resin (CR), conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement, and compomer.

Methods: Six databases were searched without restrictions regarding language or year of publication. Meta-analysis was conducted; risk ratios (RRs) and 95 percent confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated.

Results: Eleven clinical trials were included. Two studies found that the median survival time (MST) of SRGIC was less than that of GIC and RMGIC (P<0.005), and two studies found that the GIC had a lower MST than both RMGIC and compomer (P<0.05). Meta-analysis for CR, compomer, and RMGIC was conducted. These materials did not differ significantly regarding the number of restorations that survived over 24 months: CR versus RMGIC (RR equals 1.12, 95% CI equals 0.96 to 1.31); CR versus compomer (RR equals 1.04; 95% CI equals 0.96 to 1.13); and compomer versus RMGIC (RR equals 1.03; 95% CI equals 0.84 to 1.27).

Conclusions: Silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement has the worst survival rate among ionomers, and adhesive materials with a resin component have similar survival rates.