PEDIATRIC DENTISTRY

Vol. 29 No. 1       JAN - FEB 2007

ISSN: 0164-1263      UBIC: 218-F ESP

ABSTRACTS

The purpose of this study was, using evidence-based dentistry, to compare the successes of glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (RmGIC), composite resin (CR), and polyacid-modified composite resin (PAMCR) in primary molar proximal lesions. Methods: The PICOT question was: P: in primary molar proximal lesions; I: does the use of 1 material (GIC, RmGIC, CR, or PAMCR); C: compared with the remaining materials; O (Outcome): result in higher success rates; T: when followed for of least 1 year? Relevant articles (256) were identified from databases then sieved by titles, abstracts, and full texts. Following exclusions, 36 clinical trials-including 25 randomized clinical trials (RCTs)-remained. Extracted data were meta-analyzed. Results: GIC restorations had a significantly (P<.05) lower likelihood of success than RmGIC and CR restorations. Overall success rates were: (1) GIC (691 restorations)=75%; (2) RmGIC (276) =89%; (3) CR (620)=83%; (4) PAMCR (596) =8 7%. Mean success rates did not differ significantly (P<.05): (1) GIC (6 studies)=65±34%; (2) RmGIC (3 studies)=93±7%; (3) CR (7 studies) =85±12%; and (4) PAMCR (8 studies)=90±10%. Conclusions: Few articles were available to determine the best material. Recognizing material improvements since 1990, earlier data may be noncomparable. RmGIC had the highest success rates, but fewest studies and fewest restorations; only one product was assessable. Prospective RCTs should be of at least 5 years' duration to determine correctly the success rate of Class II restorations in primary molars. (Pediatr Dent 2007;29:8-15) KEYWORDS: EVIDENCE-BASED DENTISTRY, TOOTH-COLORED RESTORATIONS, PROXIMAL LESIONS, PRIMARY MOLARS.

| Volver |