(1) insufficient random or quasi-random allocation of study subjects; (2) not all entered subjects accounted for at trial conclusion; (3) subjects of both groups not followed up in the same way. Fourteen from the initial search of 164 articles complied with these criteria and were selected for review. From these, seven were rejected and seven articles reporting on 27 separate datasets, accepted. Only identified homogeneous datasets were combined for meta-analysis. From the 27 separate computable dichotomous datasets, four yielded a statistically significant improvement of longevity of ART versus amalgam restorations: posterior class V, 28% over 6.3 years; posterior class I, 6% after 2.3 years and 9% after 4.3 years; posterior class II, 61% after 2.3 years. Studies investigating restorations placed in the primary dentition showed no significant differences between the groups after 12 and 24 months. In the permanent dentition, the longevity of ART restorations is equal to or greater than that of equivalent amalgam restorations for up to 6.3 years and is site-dependent. No difference was observed in primary teeth. More trials are needed in order to confirm these results.

Within the limitations of this systematic review with meta-analysis, the results of the clinical in situ trials indicate a short-term remineralization effect of CPP-ACP. Additionally, the promising in vivo RCT results suggest a caries-preventing effect for long-term clinical CPP-ACP use. Further randomized control trials are needed in order to confirm these initial results in vivo.

Abstract:The purpose of this quantitative systematic review was to appraise the evidence on the caries-preventive effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) in relation to resin-based fissure sealants. Nine English and two Portuguese databases were searched (15 January 2008). Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews were considered for inclusion. Trial exclusion criteria were: drop-out rates > 33%; no randomization; baseline differences in groups not statistically adjusted; and no clinically important outcomes were presented. Two authors reviewed the articles independently. The outcome measure for the caries preventive effect was caries absence on sealed teeth. Of the 112 identified articles, 25 were selected for review. Of these, 14 were excluded and 11 accepted (8 trials; 3 systematic reviews). The accepted reviews provided no evidence of superiority of either sealant material. Six trials were included for meta-analysis. The pooled odds ratio was 0.96, 95% CI 0.62-1.49, indicating no difference in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealant material. This systematic review with meta-analysis found no evidence that either material was superior to the other in the prevention of dental caries. Thus, both materials appear equally suitable for clinical application as a fissure sealant material. (J Oral Sci 51, 373-382, 2009)

BackgroundThis article aims to update the existing systematic review evidence elicited by Mickenautsch et al. up to 18 January 2008 (published in the European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry in 2009) and addressing the review question of whether, in the same dentition and same cavity class, glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restored cavities show less recurrent carious lesions on cavity margins than cavities restored with amalgam.MethodsThe systematic literature search was extended beyond the original search date and a further hand-search and reference check was done. The quality of accepted trials was assessed, using updated quality criteria, and the risk of bias was investigated in more depth than previously reported. In addition, the focus of quantitative synthesis was shifted to single datasets extracted from the accepted trials.ResultsThe database search (up to 10 August 2010) identified 1 new trial, in addition to the 9 included in the original systematic review, and 11 further trials were included after a hand-search and reference check. Of these 21 trials, 11 were excluded and 10 were accepted for data extraction and quality assessment. Thirteen dichotomous datasets of primary outcomes and 4 datasets with secondary outcomes were extracted. Meta-analysis and cumulative meta-analysis were used in combining clinically homogenous datasets. The overall results of the computed datasets suggest that GIC has a higher caries-preventive effect than amalgam for restorations in permanent teeth. No difference was found for restorations in the primary dentition.ConclusionThis outcome is in agreement with the conclusions of the original systematic review. Although the findings of the trials identified in this update may be considered to be less affected by attrition- and publication bias, their risk of selection- and detection/performance bias is high. Thus, verification of the currently available results requires further high-quality randomised control trials.

The requirements for an ideal restorative material include adhesion to tooth structure (enamel and dentine) and an ability to withstand the traumas of occlusion. However, some level of an anticaries effect is also desirable. After a long history of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) development, an evidence base in support of the therapeutic effect of GIC, particularly with regard to its anticaries effect, is emerging. This evidence is increasingly presented through systematic reviews of clinical GIC application and, to a certain extent, relates to a caries-preventive effect of the material itself. However, the strength of evidence supporting other aspects of GIC, such as a higher remineralizing effect, fluoride uptake in hard tooth tissue and fluoride release of GIC, is limited. Nevertheless, the results of these in situ and laboratory trials provide valuable insights into factors that facilitate understanding of the clinical efficacy of GIC.Keywords: Glass-ionomer cement, caries, systematic review evidence.Abbreviations and acronyms: ART = Atraumatic Restorative Treatment; ASPA II = alumino-silicate polyacrylic acid; GIC = glass-ionomer cement; KHN = Knoop hardness number; RCT = randomized control trial; RR = restorative risk.