BACKGROUND

A systematic review was undertaken to determine the clinical outcomes of resin modified glass-ionomer cement or glass-ionomer cement-resin composite (RMGIC/GIC-RC) laminate restorations and flowable resin composite (FRC)-lined RC restorations compared to that of non-laminate RC restorations.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched and filtered for relevant papers by assessing titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were included, comparing the clinical performance of RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations and FRC-lined restorations with RC restorations as the control. The articles were categorized and critically appraised. Raw data were used for a fixed effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included in the review. Five evaluated FRC-lined restorations, and eight studies evaluated RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations, comparing with non-laminate RC restorations. Three of eight RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations assessed only postoperative sensitivity. A meta-analysis could only be conducted in three studies with the FRC-lined restorations as the intervention. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in clinical failures between FRC-lined RC restorations and RC restorations with no lining (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current clinical evidence, a FRC lining is no more advantageous than RC restorations with no FRC lining. More long-term RCTs are required, particularly for evaluating RMGIC/GIC-RC laminate restorations.