AS RESTAURAÇÕES DE CIMENTO DE IONÔMERO DE VIDRO EM LESÕES CERVICAIS SÃO MAIS DURADOURAS DO QUE AS RESTAURAÇÕES À BASE DE RESINA COMPOSTA? REVISÃO SISTEMÁTICA E META ANÁLISE

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review was to compare the clinical effectiveness of non-carious cervical restorations with glass ionomer cement /resin-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC/RMGIC) or composite resin (CR). The following factors were analyzed: retention rates, color, surface texture, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration and secondary caries. Methods:According to the PRISMA guidelines, systematic review was undertaken using a selection process in two phases, different references were identified and articles were included for qualitative analysis and were included in a meta-analysis. The authors searched the following electronic database: Cochrane, Lilacs, BBO, Pubmed, Scopus and Web Of Science. Additional search of grey literature was performed. Were also searched the abstracts from the IADR (1990-2015), ongoing trials in trials registries, the CAPES database for theses and the ProQuest database for theses and dissertations. We included only randomized clinical trials. Quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE tool. Results: A total of 1530 articles were identified, but only 19 articles from 15 studies remained for analysis, which were all judged at “unclear” risk of bias. Ten of the 15 studies evaluated resin-modifed glass ionomer cements, (GIC/RMGIC) that showed higher retention rates in all follow-ups (1 to 3 years; p < 0.0001 and at 5 years; p< 0.00001). No difference was observed for marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation and secondary caries in all followups (p > 0.05). CR showed better color match than GIC/RMGIC only at 2 years (p = 0.03). Higher surface texture was observed in GIC/RMGIC in all follow-ups (at 1 year p= 0.0003; at 3 years p = 0.0004). Quality of evidence was graded as moderate or low due to the unclear risk of bias and imprecision in some outcomes. Conclusions: The retention rates of GIC/RMGIC were superior to composite resins in all study follow-ups, but a higher surface texture was observed in the GIC/RMGIC compared to CR.