Neelkanthan Shreyas, Jawdekar Ashwin M, Mistry Laresh N
Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2025 Apr;18(4):473-478. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3095. Epub 2025 May 19.
Biological materials such as glass ionomer cement (GIC), calcium hydroxide cement (Ca(OH)₂) and tricalcium silicate cement (TCS) have been effective in the indirect pulp treatment (IPT) of advanced carious lesions in molars. GIC has been in use for a long time as a biomimetic material with the added advantage of fluoride release for the treatment of the same.
Our study compared the success of GIC vs Ca(OH)₂ and TCS in IPT of molars in primary and permanent teeth in 4-18-year-old children.
Two researchers, SN and AMJ, independently searched the literature using appropriate keyword combinations, and conflicts were resolved by a third author, LNM. The search was conducted using PubMed and extended to other search engines.
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (both split-mouth and parallel-arm), reported in or with full translations available in English, and a follow-up period of at least 6 months were included. Children aged 4-18 years with carious molars (primary and permanent) who had received IPTs with GIC and other cements were included.
A data extraction sheet was prepared to include all details. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot analysis. Meta-analysis were conducted using forest plots. The certainty of evidence was reported using the GRADE method. RevMan 5.4 software was used.
The success of GIC was compared with Ca(OH)₂ and TCS in IPT. Three studies were included in the meta-analysis; the pooled success of GIC vs Ca(OH)₂ [OR (95% CI)] 1.02 (0.29, 3.61) ( < 0.74). Two studies were included in the meta-analysis comparing GIC vs TCS; the pooled success [OR (95% CI)] 0.33 (0.03, 3.29). Results were statistically nonsignificant. Heterogeneity was low (² = 0%); hence, the fixed-effects model (FEM) was used. The success of GIC IPT (from four studies) was [% (95% CI)] 96.09% (92.88, 98.13).
The overall success of GIC IPT was 96%. GIC was comparable to Ca(OH)₂ and TCS. The RoB was moderate, and publication bias was unascertained.
Neelkanthan S, Jawdekar AM, Mistry LN. Comparison of Success of Glass Ionomer Cements with Calcium Hydroxide and Tricalcium Silicate Cements in Indirect Pulp Treatments of Molars in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(4):473-478.
生物材料如玻璃离子水门汀（GIC）、氢氧化钙水门汀（Ca(OH)₂）和硅酸三钙水门汀（TCS）在磨牙深龋病变的间接盖髓治疗（IPT）中已被证明有效。GIC作为一种仿生材料已被使用很长时间，其额外优势在于释放氟化物用于相同治疗。
我们的研究比较了GIC与Ca(OH)₂和TCS在4至18岁儿童乳牙和恒牙磨牙IPT中的成功率。
两位研究者SN和AMJ使用适当的关键词组合独立检索文献，冲突由第三位作者LNM解决。检索使用PubMed进行，并扩展到其他搜索引擎。
纳入以英文发表或有完整英文翻译的随机对照试验（RCTs）（包括分口和双臂试验），且随访期至少6个月。纳入4至18岁患有龋齿磨牙（乳牙和恒牙）并接受过GIC和其他水门汀IPT治疗的儿童。
准备了一份数据提取表以包含所有细节。使用Cochrane RoB 2工具评估偏倚风险（RoB）。使用漏斗图分析评估发表偏倚。使用森林图进行荟萃分析。使用GRADE方法报告证据的确定性。使用RevMan 5.4软件。
在IPT中比较了GIC与Ca(OH)₂和TCS的成功率。荟萃分析纳入了三项研究；GIC与Ca(OH)₂的合并成功率[比值比（95%置信区间）]为1.02（0.29，3.61）（<0.74）。荟萃分析纳入两项比较GIC与TCS的研究；合并成功率[比值比（CI）]为0.33（0.03，3.29）。结果无统计学意义。异质性较低（I² = 0%）；因此，使用固定效应模型（FEM）。GIC IPT的成功率（来自四项研究）为[百分比（95%置信区间）]96.09%（92.88，98.13）。
GIC IPT的总体成功率为96%。GIC与Ca(OH)₂和TCS相当。偏倚风险为中度，发表偏倚未确定。
Neelkanthan S，Jawdekar AM，Mistry LN。玻璃离子水门汀与氢氧化钙和硅酸三钙水门汀在儿童磨牙间接盖髓治疗中的成功率比较：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。《国际临床儿科牙科学杂志》2025；18（4）：473 - 478。
