TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-9-438 1553505925 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 12 23 2015 9 1 Steffen Mickenautsch Veerasamy Yengopal Purpose Traditionally, resin composite restorations are claimed by reviews of the dental literature as being superior to glass-ionomer fillings in terms of restoration failures in posterior permanent teeth. The aim of this systematic review is to answer the clinical question, whether conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer restorations, in patients with single and/or multi-surface cavities in posterior permanent teeth, have indeed a higher failure rate than direct hybrid resin composite restorations. Methods Eight databases were searched until December 02, 2013. Trials were assessed for bias risks, in-between datasets heterogeneity and statistical sample size power. Effects sizes were computed and statistically compared. A total of 55 citations were identified through systematic literature search. From these, 46 were excluded. No trials related to high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus resin composite restorations for direct head-to-head comparison were found. Three trials related to high-viscosity glass-ionomers versus amalgam and three trials related to resin composite versus amalgam restorations could be included for adjusted indirect comparison, only. Results The available evidence suggests no difference in the failure rates between both types of restoration beyond the play of chance, is limited by lack of head-to-head comparisons and an insufficient number of trials, as well as by high bias and in-between-dataset heterogeneity risk. The current clinical evidence needs to be regarded as too poor in order to justify superiority claims regarding the failure rates of both restoration types. Sufficiently large-sized, parallel-group, randomised control trials with high internal validity are needed, in order to justify any clinically meaningful judgment to this topic. 12 23 2015 438 448 TODENTJ-9-438 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2015-3-1 2015-10-15 2015-10-16 2015-12-23 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 10.2174/1874210601509010438 1553505925 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/9/PAGE/438/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V9/TODENTJ-9-438/TODENTJ-9-438.xml J. Dent. Res Rekow E.D. 92 945 2013 10.1177/0022034513507058 Rekow ED, Fox CH, Petersen PE, Watson T. Innovations in materials for direct restorations: why do we need innovations? Why is it so hard to capitalize on them? J Dent Res 2013; 92 (11) : 945-7. J. Am. Dent. Assoc Bernardo M. 138 775 2007 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265 Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, et al. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138 (6) : 775-83. GMS Health Tech. Assess Antony K 2008; 4: Doc12 Antony K, Hiebinger C, Genser D, et al. Haltbarkeit von Zahnamalgam im Vergleich zu Kompositkunststoffen (Article in German) GMS Health Tech Assess 2008; 4: Doc12. Br. Dent. J Downer M.C. 187 432 1999 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800298a1 Downer MC, Azli NA, Bedi R, Moles DR, Setchell DJ. How long do routine dental restorations last? A systematic review Br Dent J 1999; 187 (8) : 432-9. Am. J. Dent Hickel R. 13 41D 2000 Hickel R, Manhart J, García-Godoy F. Clinical results and new developments of direct posterior restorations Am J Dent 2000; 13 (Spec No) : 41D-54D. J. Adhes. Dent Hickel R. 3 45 2001 Hickel R, Manhart J. Longevity of restorations in posterior teeth and reasons for failure J Adhes Dent 2001; 3 (1) : 45-64. Oper. Dent Manhart J. 29 481 2004 Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition Oper Dent 2004; 29 (5) : 481-508. J. Dent. Res Frencken J.E. 83 120 2004 10.1177/154405910408300207 Frencken JE, Van ’t Hof MA, Van Amerongen WE, Holmgren CJ. Effectiveness of single-surface ART restorations in the permanent dentition: a meta-analysis J Dent Res 2004; 83 (2) : 120-3. J Minim Interv Dent Wang X. 5 377 2012 Wang X, Nie J, Cai X, et al. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review of Chinese trials J Minim Interv Dent 2012; 5 : 377-415. SADJ Mickenautsch S. 67 329 2012 Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared with that of conventional amalgam restorations--evidence from an update of a systematic review SADJ 2012; 67 (7) : 329-31. J Minimum Interv Dent Mickenautsch S. 6 62 2013 Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of direct tooth restorations placed with conventional glass-ionomers compared to composite resin restorations in posterior permanent teeth: a systematic review and network meta-analysis [protocol] J Minimum Interv Dent 2013; 6 : 62-72. 10.1002/0470863641 Berger VW. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomised clinical trials. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2005. Community Dent. Oral Epidemiol Taifour D. 31 122 2003 10.1034/j.1600-0528.2003.00027.x Taifour D, Frencken JE, Beiruti N, van’t Hof MA, Truin GJ, van Palenstein Helderman WH. Comparison between restorations in the permanent dentition produced by hand and rotary instrumentation--survival after 3 years Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2003; 31 (2) : 122-8. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: Section 9.5.2. The Cochrane Collaboration 2011 Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org, [Accessed: 10th Nov 2013]. BMJ Ioannidis J.P. 335 914 2007 10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80 Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses BMJ 2007; 335 (7626) : 914-6. Health Technol. Assess Glenny A.M. 9 1 2005 10.3310/hta9260 Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions Health Technol Assess 2005; 9 (26) : 1. Clin. Oral Investig Diem V.T. 18 753 2014 10.1007/s00784-013-1026-z Diem VT, Tyas MJ, Ngo HC, Phuong LH, Khanh ND. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18 (3) : 753-9. Song F. What is indirect comparison? In: UK: Hayward Medical Communications 2009. Available from: http://www.whatis series.co.uk/whatis/pdfs/What_is_ind_comp.pdf, [Accessed: 10th Nov 2013]. Value Health Jansen J.P. 14 417 2011 10.1016/j.jval.2011.04.002 Jansen JP, Fleurence R, Devine B, et al. Interpreting indirect treatment comparisons and network meta-analysis for health-care decision making: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 1 Value Health 2011; 14 (4) : 417-28. Value Health Hoaglin D.C. 14 429 2011 10.1016/j.jval.2011.01.011 Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2 Value Health 2011; 14 (4) : 429-37. J. Clin. Epidemiol Bucher H.C. 50 683 1997 10.1016/S0895-4356(97)00049-8 Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, Walter SD. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50 (6) : 683-91. Med. Care Vandermeer B.W. 45 S166 2007 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3180546867 Vandermeer BW, Buscemi N, Liang Y, Witmans M. Comparison of meta-analytic results of indirect, direct, and combined comparisons of drugs for chronic insomnia in adults: a case study Med Care 2007; 45 (10) (Suppl. 2) : S166-72. Wells GA, Sultan SA, Chen L, et al. Indirect treatment comparison [computer program]. Version 1.0. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health 2009. Schwe Monats Zahnh Roulet J.F. 90 18 1980 Roulet JF, Mettler P, Friedrich U. A clinical comparison of three composites with amalgam for class II fillings under special consideration of the curettage. Results after 2 years Schwe Monats Zahnh 1980; 90 : 18-30. Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd. Zentralbl Hoyer I. 76 721 1988 Hoyer I, Gängler P, Niemela S. Composite and amalgam fillings in a 4-year clinical comparison Zahn Mund Kieferheilkd Zentralbl 1988; 76 (7) : 721-6. J. Pak. Dent. Assoc Banday N. 11 137 2002 Banday N, Dogon L, Saeed F. A clinical trial using glass ionomers amalgams and composites (part II) J Pak Dent Assoc 2002; 11 : 137-41. Clin. Med Li H-M. 6 105 2005 Li H-M, Dou Z-H. Clinical observation of using different material in the elderly decaying tooth ART technique (Article in Chinese). Pract Clin Med 2005; 6 : 105-7. J. Dent. Res Frencken J.E. 85 622 2006 10.1177/154405910608500708 Frencken JE, Taifour D, van ’t Hof MA. Survival of ART and amalgam restorations in permanent teeth of children after 6.3 years J Dent Res 2006; 85 (7) : 622-6. Estupiñán-Day S, Milner T, Tellez M. Oral health of low income children: procedures for atraumatic restorative treatment (PRAT) - Final report. PAHO Project number 091024: ATN/JF-7025-RG 2006. J. Am. Dent. Assoc Soncini J.A. 138 763 2007 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0264 Soncini JA, Maserejian NN, Trachtenberg F, Tavares M, Hayes C. The longevity of amalgam versus compomer/composite restorations in posterior primary and permanent teeth: findings From the New England Children’s Amalgam Trial J Am Dent Assoc 2007; 138 (6) : 763-72. Eur. J. Prosthodont. Restor. Dent Sachdeo A. 12 15 2004 Sachdeo A, Gray GB, Sulieman MA, Jagger DC. Comparison of wear and clinical performance between amalgam, composite and open sandwich restorations: 2-year results Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2004; 12 (1) : 15-20. J Minimum Interv Dent Gurgan S. 6 81 2013 Gurgan S, Firat E, Kutuk ZB. Two-year study on the clinical performance of the glass ionomer based restorative system EQUIA J Minimum Interv Dent 2013; 6 : 81-6. Int. J. Epidemiol Jüni P. 31 115 2002 10.1093/ije/31.1.115 Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study Int J Epidemiol 2002; 31 (1) : 115-23. J. Clin. Epidemiol Moher D. 53 964 2000 10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00188-8 Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53 (9) : 964-72. J. Clin. Epidemiol Song F. 61 455 2008 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.06.006 Song F, Harvey I, Lilford R. Adjusted indirect comparison may be less biased than direct comparison for evaluating new pharmaceutical interventions J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (5) : 455-63.