V Yengopal1, S Mickenautsch. 1. Division of Public Oral Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, Parktown, Johannesburg, 2193, South Africa.
Abstract
AIM: To determine whether resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC), when compared with composite resins (CR), offers a significant caries-preventive effect. STUDY DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review. METHODS: Five databases were searched until 29 July 2010. Inclusion criteria were: relevant to review question related to orthodontic or restorative treatment; published in English; prospective clinical 2-arm study. Exclusion criteria were: no computable data reported; study groups not followed up in the same way. References of included articles were checked. The outcome measure was absence of carious lesions. Dichotomous datasets for both groups were extracted from accepted trials. Trials were assessed for selection-, detection/performance, attrition and publication bias. RESULTS: Of the 11 trials included, 6 were accepted and 24 datasets extracted; 17 datasets showed no difference after 4 weeks to >25 months. There were 7 datasets that favoured (p < 0.05) RM-GIC after 12 - 24 months. The results are limited by risk of selection-, detection-/performance bias and attrition bias. Risk of publication bias was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results showed either no difference between the materials, or indicated that RM-GIC has a superior caries-preventive effect. The clinical meaning of this result remains uncertain due to risk of bias. High-quality randomised control trials are needed in order to answer the review question conclusively.
AIM: To determine whether resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RM-GIC), when compared with composite resins (CR), offers a significant caries-preventive effect. STUDY DESIGN: Quantitative systematic review. METHODS: Five databases were searched until 29 July 2010. Inclusion criteria were: relevant to review question related to orthodontic or restorative treatment; published in English; prospective clinical 2-arm study. Exclusion criteria were: no computable data reported; study groups not followed up in the same way. References of included articles were checked. The outcome measure was absence of carious lesions. Dichotomous datasets for both groups were extracted from accepted trials. Trials were assessed for selection-, detection/performance, attrition and publication bias. RESULTS: Of the 11 trials included, 6 were accepted and 24 datasets extracted; 17 datasets showed no difference after 4 weeks to >25 months. There were 7 datasets that favoured (p < 0.05) RM-GIC after 12 - 24 months. The results are limited by risk of selection-, detection-/performance bias and attrition bias. Risk of publication bias was identified. CONCLUSIONS: The overall results showed either no difference between the materials, or indicated that RM-GIC has a superior caries-preventive effect. The clinical meaning of this result remains uncertain due to risk of bias. High-quality randomised control trials are needed in order to answer the review question conclusively.