Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.

Amend, S; Boutsiouki, C; Bekes, K; Kloukos, D; Lygidakis, N N; Frankenberger, R; Krämer, N (2022). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review. European archives of paediatric dentistry, 23(5), pp. 727-759. Springer 10.1007/s40368-022-00725-7

Preview

Text Amend2022_Article_ClinicalEffectivenessOfRestora.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution (CC-BY). Download (1MB) | Preview

PURPOSE

To systematically search the available evidence and evaluate the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for restoration of carious primary teeth. The findings aimed to support the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guidelines development.

METHODS

Literature search was performed by searching 4 electronic databases for eligible randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth up to December 28th, 2020. Quality assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).

RESULTS

Of 1685 identified articles 29 RCTs were finally deemed as eligible for inclusion. Annual failure rates were: Amalgam 1-28%; atraumatic restorative treatment 1.2-37.1%; glass-ionomer cement (GIC) 7.6-16.6%, metal-reinforced GIC 29.9%, resin-modified GIC 1.9-16.9%, high-viscosity GIC 2.9-25.6%; glass carbomer ≤ 46.2%; compomer 0-14.7%; composite resin (CR) 0-19.5%, bulk-fill CR 0-16.9%; zirconia crowns 3.3%, composite strip crowns 15%, and preformed metal crowns (Hall-Technique) 3.1%. Secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention, and fracture of restoration were reported as reasons for failure. Four studies were evaluated at unclear and 25 at high risk of bias. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity, and the diversity of tested materials across included studies did not allow for meta-analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review, namely, the heterogeneity and the overall high risk of bias among included studies, clear recommendations based on solid evidence for the best restorative approach in primary teeth cannot be drawn. There is a need for future thoroughly implemented RCTs evaluating restorations in primary teeth to close this knowledge gap.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

234 since deposited on 18 Jul 2022
44 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item