Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

• Published in: Brazilian oral research 2018-03, Vol.32, p.e10-e10
• Main Authors: Pires, Carine Weber, Pedrotti, Djessica, Lenzi, Tathiane Larissa, Soares, Fabio Zovico Maxnuck, Ziegelmann, Patricia Klarmann, Rocha, Rachel de Oliveira
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Dental Materials; Dentistry; DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE; Evidence-Based Dentistry; Pediatric Dentistry
• ISSN: 1807-3107; 1807-3107
• DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.