Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
52
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The aim was to determine the survival of tooth-coloured restorative materials in proximal restorations of primary teeth at 24 months of follow-up and the influence of the following variables: use of coating, use of cavity conditioner, use of rubber dam isolation, the cavity form, the dentist’s experience and the methodological characteristics of the studies. We conducted a search until May 2019, obtaining 16 articles from which 30 independent studies were extracted, which were considered as units of analysis. Four outcome measures were extracted from each study: retention, marginal integrity, anatomic form, and absence of recurrent caries. Separate meta-analyses were carried for each outcome and multiple meta-regression model was applied. The outcomes with the highest mean success rates were absence of recurrent caries and anatomic form. The type of material significantly influenced success rates. The best materials were resin-based material plus total-etching adhesion and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), and the worst high viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC). Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) had a lower success rate than the conventional cavity form. RMGIC had the best clinical performance and HVGIC the worst. The form of the cavity, blinding and the experience of the operator were the variables that influenced success rates. Proximal primary molar restorations should be performed with RMGIC as it combines good mechanical performance of the resins together with the prevention of secondary caries of glass ionomers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references63

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate.

          The explanation of heterogeneity plays an important role in meta-analysis. The random effects meta-regression model allows the inclusion of trial-specific covariates which may explain a part of the heterogeneity. We examine the commonly used tests on the parameters in the random effects meta-regression with one covariate and propose some new test statistics based on an improved estimator of the variance of the parameter estimates. The approximation of the distribution of the newly proposed tests is based on some theoretical considerations. Moreover, the newly proposed tests can easily be extended to the case of more than one covariate. In a simulation study, we compare the tests with regard to their actual significance level and we consider the log relative risk as the parameter of interest. Our simulation study reflects the meta-analysis of the efficacy of a vaccine for the prevention of tuberculosis originally discussed in Berkey et al. The simulation study shows that the newly proposed tests are superior to the commonly used test in holding the nominal significance level. Copyright 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial.

            Failure of dental restorations is a major concern in dental practice. Replacement of failed restorations constitutes the majority of operative work. Clinicians should be aware of the longevity of, and likely reasons for the failure of, direct posterior restorations. In a long-term, randomized clinical trial, the authors compared the longevity of amalgam and composite. SUBJECTS, METHODS AND MATERIALS: The authors randomly assigned one-half of the 472 subjects, whose age ranged from 8 through 12 years, to receive amalgam restorations in posterior teeth and the other one-half to receive resin-based composite restorations. Study dentists saw subjects annually to conduct follow-up oral examinations and take bitewing radiographs. Restorations needing replacement were failures. The dentists recorded differential reasons for restoration failure. Subjects received a total of 1,748 restorations at baseline, which the authors followed for up to seven years. Overall, 10.1 percent of the baseline restorations failed. The survival rate of the amalgam restorations was 94.4 percent; that of composite restorations was 85.5 percent. Annual failure rates ranged from 0.16 to 2.83 percent for amalgam restorations and from 0.94 to 9.43 percent for composite restorations. Secondary caries was the main reason for failure in both materials. Risk of secondary caries was 3.5 times greater in the composite group. Amalgam restorations performed better than did composite restorations. The difference in performance was accentuated in large restorations and in those with more than three surfaces involved. Use of amalgam appears to be preferable to use of composites in multisurface restorations of large posterior teeth if longevity is the primary criterion in material selection.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review on survival and reasons for failures

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                ajortiz@um.es
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                14 April 2020
                14 April 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 6409
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2287 8496, GRID grid.10586.3a, Department of Integral Paediatric Dentistry. Faculty of Medicine, , University of Murcia, ; Murcia, Spain
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2168 1800, GRID grid.5268.9, Department of Health Psychology, Faculty of Health Sciences, , University of Alicante, ; Alicante, Spain
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2287 8496, GRID grid.10586.3a, Department of Basic Psychology & Methodology, Faculty of Psychology, , University of Murcia, ; Murcia, Spain
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9113-8416
                Article
                63497
                10.1038/s41598-020-63497-4
                7156457
                32286461
                bc1ad4ad-5ea1-45a6-9410-4207b5e56cc6
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 13 December 2019
                : 31 March 2020
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                glasses,paediatric research,biomaterials
                Uncategorized
                glasses, paediatric research, biomaterials

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content133

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors871