OBJECTIVES: To carry out a meta-analysis in order to assess the influencing factors on retention loss and marginal discoloration of cervical restorations made of composites and glass ionomer (derivates). METHODS: The literature was searched for prospective clinical studies on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months. RESULTS: Fifty clinical studies involving 40 adhesive systems matched the inclusion criteria. On average, 10% of the cervical fillings were lost and 24% exhibited marginal discoloration after 3 years. The variability ranged from 0% to 50% for retention loss and from 0% to 74% for marginal discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries was detected. When linear mixed models with a study and experiment effect were used, the analysis revealed that the adhesive/restorative class had the most significant influence, with 2-step self-etching adhesive systems performing best and 1-step self-etching adhesive systems performing worst; 3-step etch-and-rinse systems, glass ionomers/resin-modified glass ionomers, 2-step etch-and-rinse systems and polyacid-modified resin composites were ranked in between. Restorations placed in teeth whose dentin/enamel had been prepared/roughened showed a statistically significant higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin (p<0.05). Beveling of the enamel and the type of isolation used (rubberdam/cotton rolls) had no significant influence. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of cervical restorations is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system used and/or the adhesive class to which the system belonged and whether the dentin/enamel is prepared or not. 2-Step self-etching- and 3-step etch&rinse systems shall be chosen over 1-step self-etching systems and glass ionomer derivates. The dentin (and enamel) surface shall be roughened before placement of the restoration. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVES: To carry out a meta-analysis in order to assess the influencing factors on retention loss and marginal discoloration of cervical restorations made of composites and glass ionomer (derivates). METHODS: The literature was searched for prospective clinical studies on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months. RESULTS: Fifty clinical studies involving 40 adhesive systems matched the inclusion criteria. On average, 10% of the cervical fillings were lost and 24% exhibited marginal discoloration after 3 years. The variability ranged from 0% to 50% for retention loss and from 0% to 74% for marginal discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries was detected. When linear mixed models with a study and experiment effect were used, the analysis revealed that the adhesive/restorative class had the most significant influence, with 2-step self-etching adhesive systems performing best and 1-step self-etching adhesive systems performing worst; 3-step etch-and-rinse systems, glass ionomers/resin-modified glass ionomers, 2-step etch-and-rinse systems and polyacid-modified resin composites were ranked in between. Restorations placed in teeth whose dentin/enamel had been prepared/roughened showed a statistically significant higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin (p<0.05). Beveling of the enamel and the type of isolation used (rubberdam/cotton rolls) had no significant influence. SIGNIFICANCE: The clinical performance of cervical restorations is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system used and/or the adhesive class to which the system belonged and whether the dentin/enamel is prepared or not. 2-Step self-etching- and 3-step etch&rinse systems shall be chosen over 1-step self-etching systems and glass ionomer derivates. The dentin (and enamel) surface shall be roughened before placement of the restoration. Copyright 2010 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Authors: Marleen Peumans; Jan De Munck; Kirsten L Van Landuyt; Andre Poitevin; Paul Lambrechts; Bart Van Meerbeek Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2010-10-08 Impact factor: 3.573