Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Isis Morais Bezerra; Arella Cristina Muniz Brito; Simone Alves de Sousa; Bianca Marques Santiago; Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti; Leopoldina de Fátima Dantas de Almeida

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969

Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Heliyon. 2020 May 21;6(5):e03969. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e03969. eCollection 2020 May.

Authors

Isis Morais Bezerra¹, Arella Cristina Muniz Brito¹, Simone Alves de Sousa², Bianca Marques Santiago², Yuri Wanderley Cavalcanti², Leopoldina de Fátima Dantas de Almeida²

Affiliations

¹ Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil.
² Department of Clinical and Social Dentistry, Federal University of Paraíba, Brazil.

Abstract

Objective: Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC) and composite resins (CR) used for noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA).

Data: Randomized and controlled clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials, which compared the clinical performance/longevity of CR and GIC (conventional and/or resin-modified) in the treatment of NCCL, were included.

Source: The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Seven MAs were performed considering (1) the clinical performance of the parameters in common: retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, color, anatomic form, surface texture and (2) a follow-up time of 12, 24 and 36 months. The prevalence of successful restorations and the total number of restorations per clinical parameter/follow-up time were used to calculate the relative risk (95% CI).

Study selection: After screening of the studies, 13 studies were used for quantitative synthesis. The risk difference (CI 95%, α, I²) between GIC and CR for anatomic form was 0.00 (-0.02, 0.02; p = 0.83; 0%); for color was -0.02 (-0.08, 0.04; p = 0.48; 80%); for surface texture was -0.02 (-0.06, 0.02; p = 0.31; 63%); for secondary caries was -0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; p = 0.87; 0%); for marginal discoloration was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03; p = 0.23; 3%); for marginal adaptation was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.04; p = 0.34; 32%) and for retention was 0.07 (0.02, 0.12; p = 0.003; 76%).

Conclusion: GIC showed a clinical performance significantly higher than CR in regard to retention, whereas for the other parameters, GIC was similar to CR.

Clinical significance: NCCLs is increasingly prevalent among the population and this type of lesion causing defects in the tooth that affect not only aesthetics but also everyday habits, such as drinking, eating and teeth brushing, due to the sensitivity these lesions cause.

Keywords: Clinical research; Composite resin; Dental materials; Dentistry; Evidence-based medicine; Glass ionomer cements; Root caries.