Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega, Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva, Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Sara Antonieta Luján-Valencia, Joan Manuel Meza-Málaga, Rubén Aguirre-Ipenza, Adriana Echevarria-Goche, Eduardo Luján-Urviola, Tania Belú Castillo-Cornock, Katherine Serquen-Olano
{"title":"玻璃离聚体骨水泥与复合树脂在非龋齿宫颈病变修复中的临床性能比较:一项系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega, Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva, Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Sara Antonieta Luján-Valencia, Joan Manuel Meza-Málaga, Rubén Aguirre-Ipenza, Adriana Echevarria-Goche, Eduardo Luján-Urviola, Tania Belú Castillo-Cornock, Katherine Serquen-Olano","doi":"10.4317/jced.62997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs. composite resin (CR) in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A bibliographic search was conducted until October 2023, in the biomedical databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials reporting the effect of GIC compared to CR in the restoration of NCCLs were included, without restrictions on publication date or language. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded a total of 296 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 18 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between CR and GIC in the restoration of NCCLs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in clinical performance over time when restoring NCCLs with CRs or GICs. <b>Key words:</b>Non-carious cervical lesion, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, review, meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":15376,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","volume":"17 8","pages":"e995-e1005"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12424605/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Heber Isac Arbildo-Vega, Fredy Hugo Cruzado-Oliva, Franz Tito Coronel-Zubiate, Sara Antonieta Luján-Valencia, Joan Manuel Meza-Málaga, Rubén Aguirre-Ipenza, Adriana Echevarria-Goche, Eduardo Luján-Urviola, Tania Belú Castillo-Cornock, Katherine Serquen-Olano\",\"doi\":\"10.4317/jced.62997\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>To compare the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs. composite resin (CR) in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A bibliographic search was conducted until October 2023, in the biomedical databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials reporting the effect of GIC compared to CR in the restoration of NCCLs were included, without restrictions on publication date or language. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The search yielded a total of 296 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 18 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between CR and GIC in the restoration of NCCLs.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in clinical performance over time when restoring NCCLs with CRs or GICs. <b>Key words:</b>Non-carious cervical lesion, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, review, meta-analysis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15376,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"17 8\",\"pages\":\"e995-e1005\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12424605/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.62997\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.62997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:比较玻璃离子水泥(GIC)与复合树脂(CR)在宫颈非龋齿病变(NCCL)修复中的临床表现。材料和方法:到2023年10月,在生物医学数据库PubMed/Medline、Cochrane Library、SciELO、Scopus、Web of Science和谷歌Scholar中进行了书目检索。纳入了报告GIC与CR在ncls修复中的作用的随机临床试验,不受发表日期和语言的限制。使用RoB 2.0工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险,使用GRADEPro GDT工具评估证据质量和建议的强度。结果:检索到296篇文献。在剔除不符合选择标准的文献后,剩下18篇文献进行定量综合。分析发现CR和GIC在ncls修复方面无统计学差异。结论:文献综述表明,使用CRs或GICs修复ncls的临床表现没有随时间的差异。关键词:宫颈非龋齿病变,复合树脂,玻璃离子水泥,综述,meta分析。
Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Background: To compare the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs. composite resin (CR) in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL).
Material and methods: A bibliographic search was conducted until October 2023, in the biomedical databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials reporting the effect of GIC compared to CR in the restoration of NCCLs were included, without restrictions on publication date or language. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations.
Results: The search yielded a total of 296 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 18 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between CR and GIC in the restoration of NCCLs.
Conclusions: The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in clinical performance over time when restoring NCCLs with CRs or GICs. Key words:Non-carious cervical lesion, composite resin, glass ionomer cement, review, meta-analysis.
期刊介绍:
Indexed in PUBMED, PubMed Central® (PMC) since 2012 and SCOPUSJournal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is an Open Access (free access on-line) - http://www.medicinaoral.com/odo/indice.htm. The aim of the Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry is: - Periodontology - Community and Preventive Dentistry - Esthetic Dentistry - Biomaterials and Bioengineering in Dentistry - Operative Dentistry and Endodontics - Prosthetic Dentistry - Orthodontics - Oral Medicine and Pathology - Odontostomatology for the disabled or special patients - Oral Surgery