Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2021 Dec;22(6):1003-1013.
doi: 10.1007/s40368-021-00632-3. Epub 2021 May 28.

Tooth-coloured materials for class II restorations in primary molars: systematic review and meta-analysis

V Siokis  1 , T Michailidis  2 , N Kotsanos  3
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

Tooth-coloured materials for class II restorations in primary molars: systematic review and meta-analysis

V Siokis et al. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2021 Dec.

Erratum in

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the success rate of five tooth-coloured materials, namely Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI), Composite Resin (CR), Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin or Compomer (CO) and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (HVGI) in primary molar Class II restorations.

Methods: Five databases were searched from inception to April 23, 2020 for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rate of these materials. After duplicate study removal, data extraction and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, data synthesis was conducted, comparing all five tooth-coloured materials in pairs and computing the overall success rate for each one, respectively.

Results: A total of 5615 articles were obtained by electronic and hand literature search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, ten RCTs were included in this systematic review and six RCTs for meta-analysis. Their risk of bias was assessed to be high to moderate. Due to the small number of RCTs comparing the five restorative materials in pairs investigated in the same study, only three MAs were available for heterogeneity assessment. These were: (1) between CO-RMGI (RR 1.04 [0.59, 1.84]; p = 0.88; I2 = 1%), (2) CR-CO (RR 1.12 [0.41, 3.02]; p = 0.83; I2 = 57%), and (3) between CR-RMGI (RR 1.10 [0.74, 1.63]; p = 0.65; I2 = 0%). No statistically significant differences were found between the two materials in all three comparisons.

Conclusion: CR, RMGI and CO presented no statistical differences. In comparison to other tooth-coloured materials, studies on GI were too few to allow recommendations about its use. More studies on HGVI are needed for evidence-based recommendations to be made. The evidence extracted from this meta-analysis was not strong enough (moderate), due to the small number of RCTs and the risk of bias ranging from high to moderate. More, well-designed RCTs comparing tooth-coloured materials for primary molar Class II restorations are necessary.

Keywords: Class II restorations; Failure rate; Meta-analysis; Primary molars; Systematic review; Tooth-coloured materials.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. American Academy of Paediatrics Dentistry (AAPD). Guidelines for Paediatric Restorative Dentistry. Revised 2016. https://www.aapd.org/research/oral-health-policies - recommendations/pediatric-restorative-dentistry/
    1. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, de Gee AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27(5):472–6. - DOI
    1. Andersson-Wenckert I, Sunnegardh-Gronberg K. Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: a two-year clinical evaluation. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006;64(6):334–40. - DOI
    1. Bektas Donmez S, Uysal S, Dolgun A, Turgut MD. Clinical performance of aesthetic restorative materials in primary teeth according to the FDI criteria. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016;17(3):202–12. - PubMed
    1. Cappelleri JC, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH, de Ferranti SD, Aubert M, Chalmers TC, Lau J. Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare? JAMA. 1996;276:1332–8. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources