Jullyana Mayara P Dezanetti1, Bruna Luiza Nascimento1, Juliana S R Orsi1, Evelise M Souza2. 1. Graduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil. 2. Graduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil. evelise.souza@pucpr.br.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of glass ionomer cements (GICs) compared to other restorative materials in the treatment of radiation-related caries. METHODS: Two independent researchers searched literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs/BBO) and the grey literature to identify clinical trials that compared GICs with other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries. The clinical criteria considered for the performance of the restorations were based on the parameters of marginal adaptation/anatomical form, secondary caries, retention, and cumulative failures of the restorations. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: From a total of 511, only four articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conventional GIC restorations presented higher marginal adaptation failures than the resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs) and composite restorations in all of the follow-up periods. Secondary caries was not observed in conventional GIC restorations throughout the follow-up periods, in three out of four of the included studies. RM-GICs and composite restorations showed significantly lower cumulative failure rates than conventional GICs at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Due to insufficient scientific evidence, it was not possible to conclude that GICs are more effective than other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries.
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of glass ionomer cements (GICs) compared to other restorative materials in the treatment of radiation-related caries. METHODS: Two independent researchers searched literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs/BBO) and the grey literature to identify clinical trials that compared GICs with other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries. The clinical criteria considered for the performance of the restorations were based on the parameters of marginal adaptation/anatomical form, secondary caries, retention, and cumulative failures of the restorations. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: From a total of 511, only four articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conventional GIC restorations presented higher marginal adaptation failures than the resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs) and composite restorations in all of the follow-up periods. Secondary caries was not observed in conventional GIC restorations throughout the follow-up periods, in three out of four of the included studies. RM-GICs and composite restorations showed significantly lower cumulative failure rates than conventional GICs at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Due to insufficient scientific evidence, it was not possible to conclude that GICs are more effective than other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries.
Authors: Marilia Mattar de Amoêdo Campos Velo; Ana Laura Herrera Farha; Paulo Sérgio da Silva Santos; Aymée Shiota; Simone Zuquerato Sansavino; Ana Tarsila Souza; Heitor Marques Honório; Linda Wang Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2018-02-11 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Canhua Xiao; Alexandra Hanlon; Qiang Zhang; Kian Ang; David I Rosenthal; P Felix Nguyen-Tan; Harold Kim; Benjamin Movsas; Deborah Watkins Bruner Journal: Oral Oncol Date: 2012-11-17 Impact factor: 5.337
Authors: Cristhian C Madrid; Mariana de Pauli Paglioni; Sergio R Line; Karina G Vasconcelos; Thaís Bianca Brandão; Marcio A Lopes; Alan Roger Santos-Silva; Mario Fernando De Goes Journal: Caries Res Date: 2017-01-26 Impact factor: 4.056
Authors: Catherine H L Hong; Joel J Napeñas; Brian D Hodgson; Monique A Stokman; Vickie Mathers-Stauffer; Linda S Elting; Fred K L Spijkervet; Michael T Brennan Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-05-07 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Herve Y Sroussi; Joel B Epstein; Rene-Jean Bensadoun; Deborah P Saunders; Rajesh V Lalla; Cesar A Migliorati; Natalie Heaivilin; Zachary S Zumsteg Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 4.452