Nguyen K V, Sathorn C, Wong R H, Burrow M F
Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.
Aust Dent J. 2015 Dec;60(4):520-7. doi: 10.1111/adj.12252.
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.
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.
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).
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.
进行了一项系统评价，以确定树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀或玻璃离子水门汀 - 树脂复合材料（RMGIC/GIC - RC）分层修复体和可流动树脂复合材料（FRC）内衬的树脂复合材料（RC）修复体与非分层RC修复体相比的临床效果。
通过评估标题、摘要和全文文章，对电子数据库进行搜索和筛选以获取相关论文。纳入随机对照临床试验（RCT），比较RMGIC/GIC - RC分层修复体和FRC内衬修复体与作为对照的RC修复体的临床性能。对文章进行分类和严格评价。使用原始数据进行固定效应荟萃分析。
该评价纳入了13篇文章。5篇评估了FRC内衬修复体，8项研究评估了RMGIC/GIC - RC分层修复体，并与非分层RC修复体进行比较。8项RMGIC/GIC - RC分层修复体研究中有3项仅评估了术后敏感性。仅能对3项以FRC内衬修复体作为干预措施的研究进行荟萃分析。荟萃分析发现，FRC内衬的RC修复体与无内衬的RC修复体在临床失败方面无显著差异（p>0.05）。
基于当前临床证据，FRC内衬并不比无FRC内衬的RC修复体更具优势。需要更多长期的RCT，特别是用于评估RMGIC/GIC - RC分层修复体。
