การเปรียบเทียบความล้มเหลวในการบูรณะฟันน้ำนม Class II ระหว่างการใช้วัสดุบูรณะกลุ่มกลาสไอโอโนเมอร์ซีเมนต์ และเรซินคอมโพสิต: การทบทวนอย่างเป็นระบบและการวิเคราะห์อภิมาน

Natthahpatt Wuthimahanon; Kannika Chukiatmun; Sumana Posritong

Authors

Natthahpatt Wuthimahanon Institute of Dentistry
Kannika Chukiatmun Institute of Dentistry
Sumana Posritong Institute of Dentistry

Keywords:

Class II primary tooth restorations, Resin composite, Conventional glass ionomer, Resin-modified glass-ionomer, Failure

Abstract

Background: Class II restorations in primary teeth can be performed using tooth-colored restorative materials, including resin composite and glass-ionomer cement. As these two materials have different advantages and disadvantages, the study of restoration failure following the use of each material plays an important role in clinical decision-making. Objective: To compare restoration failure between glass-ionomer cement and resin composite in Class Il restorations in primary teeth. Method: A systematic search of relevant studies was conducted using PubMed, Google Scholar, and open-access sources, together with manual searching. Articles published in English and Thai between 1992 and 2022 were included, and 11 eligible studies were analyzed in a meta-analysis of the likelihood of restoration failure. Results: Glass-ionomer cement showed a 1.186-fold higher likelihood of failure than resin composite, with no statistically significant difference (p = .385; 95% CI: 0.807, 1.742). Conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGI) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGI) demonstrated 1.818-fold and 0.955-fold likelihoods of restoration failure, respectively, compared with resin composite in Class II primary tooth restorations. These differences were not statistically significant (p = .082; 95% CI: 0.926, 3.571 and p = .850; 95% CI: 0.593, 1.537). Conclusion: There was no difference in the likelihood of failure between glass-ionomer cement and resin composite in Class II primary tooth restorations. Conventional glass-ionomer cement showed a higher likelihood of failure than resin-modified glass-ionomer cement; however, this difference was not statistically significant when compared with resin composite. The results of this study suggest that further high-quality studies are required.

References

Ekstrand KR, Luna LE, Promisiero L, Cortes A, Cuevas S, Reyes JF, et al. The reliability and accuracy of two methods for proximal caries detection and depth on directly visible proximal surfaces: an in vitro study. Caries Res 2011;45(2):93-9.

Dias AGA, Magno MB, Delbem ACB, Cunha RF, Maia LC, Pessan JP. Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2018;73:1-13.

Ekworapoj P. Dental resin composite: composition, development and selection. SWU J Sci Technol 2014;6(12):122-33.

Sainulabdeen S, Neelakantan P, Ramesh S, Subbarao CV. Antibacterial activity of triclosan incorporated glass ionomer cements -- an in vitro pilot study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2010;35(2):157-61.

Termkleepbuppa K, Klaisiri A. Clinical applications of glass-ionomer cement. Thammasat Medical Journal 2017;17(2):653-60.

Croll TP, Nicholson JW. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent 2002;24(5):423-9.

Pires CW, Pedrotti D, Lenzi TL, Soares FZM, Ziegelmann PK, Rocha RO. Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:e10.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919.

Ostlund J, Möller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars -- a three year clinical evaluation. Swed Dent J 1992;16(3):81-6.

Fuks AB, Araujo FB, Osorio LB, Hadani PE, Pinto AS. Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class Il esthetic restorations in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2000;22(6):479-85.

Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçağ O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137(11):1529-36.

Andersson-Wenckert I, Sunnegårdh-Grönberg 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.

dos Santos MP, Passos M, Luiz RR, Maia LC. A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class Il beveled preparations in primary molars: 24-month results. J Am Dent Assoc 2009;140(2):156-66; quiz 247-8.

Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class Il beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. J Dent 2010;38(6):451-9.

Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, Garcia-Godoy F, et al. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent 2013;26(6):351-5.

Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical evaluation of restorative materials in primary teeth class II lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;39(4):315-21.

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.

Dermata A, Papageorgiou SN, Fragkou S, Kotsanos N. Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2018;19(6):393-401.

Harun NA, Yaacob M, Alim MSAA, Ghazali S, Khairuzaman NKANK. Clinical performance of restorative materials in primary molar teeth. Materials Today: Proceedings 2019;16(4):2333-40.

Ortiz-Ruiz AJ, Pérez-Guzmán N, Rubio-Aparicio M, Sanchez-Meca J. Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep 2020;10(1):6409.

Santos AP, Moreira IK, Scarpelli AC, Pordeus IA, Paiva SM, Martins CC. Survival of adhesive restorations for primary molars: a systematic review and metaanalysis of clinical trials. Pediatr Dent 2016;38(5):370-8.

Toh SL, Messer LB. Evidence-based assessment of tooth-colored restorations in proximal lesions of primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2007;29(1):8-15.

Phonghanyudh A, Theerareungchaisri C, Jirarattanasopa V. Clinical evaluation of class II high-viscosity glass ionomer cement and composite resin restorations in primary molars: one year result. Mahidol Dental Journal 2014;34(2):129-36.

Raggio DP, Hesse D, Lenzi TL, Guglielmi CA, Braga MM. Is Atraumatic restorative treatment an option for restoring occlusoproximal caries lesions in primary teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Paediatr Dent 2013;23(6):435-43.

Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class Il restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2019;20(5):451-6.