This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Randall, R.C. Articles by Wilson, N.H.F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Randall, R.C. Articles by Wilson, N.H.F. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Glass-ionomer Restoratives: A Systematic Review of a Secondary Caries Treatment Effect

Restorative Dentistry, Manchester University Turner Dental School, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, United Kingdom

N.H.F. Wilson

Restorative Dentistry, Manchester University Turner Dental School, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, M15 6FH, United Kingdom

It is generally accepted that glass ionomers inhibit secondary caries in vivo, and data from in vitro studies support this effect. The aim of this review was a systematic assessment, from the literature, of clinical evidence for the ability of glass-ionomer restoratives to inhibit secondary caries the restoration margin. Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection of the review papers were established prior to commencement of the literature search. Papers which conformed to these criteria, and reported on secondary caries as an outcome, were selected (N = 52). Primary and secondary of systematic for use in the assessment of the papers were drawn up. The primary list of 14 criteria was applied to each paper. No paper fulfilled all these criteria, necessitating the use of the secondary measures: (i) a prospective study and (ii) use of an appropriate control. This yielded 28 papers. Tabulation of these papers by occurrence of secondary caries in the glass-ionomer or control groups demonstrated an even distribution between positive and negative outcomes. Valid evidence is to be best obtained from randomized, controlled of sufficient sample size. No conclusive evidence for or against a treatment effect of inhibition of secondary caries by the glass-ionomer restoratives was obtained from the systematic review. There is a need for appraisal of the methods currently adopted for the clinical of glass-ionomer restorative materials, for further development of the methodology to support future systematic reviews.

Key Words: systematic review • glass ionomer • secondary caries.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 78, No. 2, 628-637 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345990780020101


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. K. Ersin, U. Candan, A. Aykut, O. Oncag, C. Eronat, and T. Kose 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, November 1, 2006; 137(11): 1529 - 1536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. BADER and A. ISMAIL Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry J Am Dent Assoc, April 1, 2004; 135(4): 464 - 473. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. W. HAVEMAN, J. B. SUMMITT, J. O. BURGESS, and K. CARLSON Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: A clinical comparison J Am Dent Assoc, February 1, 2003; 134(2): 177 - 184. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]