Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composites and Glass Ionomer Cements to Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies
<i><b>Background</b></i>: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Theref...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/be1c05897c5c4212a6a6388091cae115 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <i><b>Background</b></i>: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. <b><i>Methods</i></b>: A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. <b><i>Results</i></b>: Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). <b><i>Conclusions</i></b>: Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances. |
|---|