Mickenautsch Steffen, Tyas Martin J, Yengopal Veerasamy, Oliveira Luciana B, Bönecker Marcelo
Division of Public Oral Health, University of the Witwatersrand, Parktown/Johannesburg, South Africa.
Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2010 Sep;18(3):139-45.
This systematic review sought to quantitatively answer the question as to whether, in tooth cavities of the same size, type of dentition and follow-up period, resin-modified glass-ionomer (GIC) restorations, when compared to conventional GIC restorations, offer a significant caries preventive effect, as measured by the absence of caries lesions at the margin of restorations. Six databases were searched for articles in English, Portuguese or Spanish until 07 May 2009. Four articles were accepted and 22 separate datasets extracted. The difference between both types of material were computed as relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). No meta-analysis was undertaken due to aspects of clinical/methodological heterogeneity. The results of the extracted datasets ranged between RR 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.01) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.71-1.63; p > 0.05) indicating no difference in the caries preventive effect between both types of materials. Further high-quality randomized control trials are needed in order to confirm these results.
在相同大小、牙列类型和随访期的龋洞中，与传统玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复体相比，树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）修复体在修复体边缘无龋损方面是否具有显著的防龋效果。检索了六个数据库，查找截至2009年5月7日的英文、葡萄牙文或西班牙文文章。纳入了四篇文章，并提取了22个独立的数据集。计算两种材料之间的差异为相对风险（RR）及95%置信区间（CI）。由于临床/方法学异质性方面的原因，未进行荟萃分析。提取数据集的结果在RR 0.90（95%CI 0.81 - 1.01）至1.08（95%CI 0.71 - 1.63；p>0.05）之间，表明两种材料在防龋效果上无差异。需要进一步的高质量随机对照试验来证实这些结果。
