Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2025
Clinical Performance of Resin-Based Composite and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Restoring Cervical Carious Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alnozaily Raghda, Alkherbash Arham M, Diaban Shehab, Alshammari Abdullah F, Al-Haddad Afaf, Madfa Ahmed A
Аннотация
AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of resin-based composites (RBC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) restorations of cervical caries lesions in randomized clinical trials.
METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using relevant MeSH keywords. Randomized clinical trials that compared the clinical performance of RBC and RMGIC were retrieved and assessed. The included studies were qualitatively assessed using the updated Risk of Bias Cochrane tools. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled retention, marginal adaptation, secondary caries occurrence, marginal discoloration, color match, surface roughness, and postoperative sensitivity at 12 and 18 months.
RESULTS: Nine trials were eligible for this review, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis. Only two studies were assessed with some concerns, while the rest were low risk. No significant difference between the two restorations in the assessed clinical outcomes at 12 and 18 months.
CONCLUSION: When restoring carious cervical lesions, RBC and RMGIC have comparable clinical performance.
METHODS: The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases were searched using relevant MeSH keywords. Randomized clinical trials that compared the clinical performance of RBC and RMGIC were retrieved and assessed. The included studies were qualitatively assessed using the updated Risk of Bias Cochrane tools. Quantitative meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled retention, marginal adaptation, secondary caries occurrence, marginal discoloration, color match, surface roughness, and postoperative sensitivity at 12 and 18 months.
RESULTS: Nine trials were eligible for this review, and 8 were included in the meta-analysis. Only two studies were assessed with some concerns, while the rest were low risk. No significant difference between the two restorations in the assessed clinical outcomes at 12 and 18 months.
CONCLUSION: When restoring carious cervical lesions, RBC and RMGIC have comparable clinical performance.