Compomers for the restorative treatment of dental caries in primary teeth: An umbrella review

Comparative analysis of shear bond strength of MTA and Theracal PT with different restorative materials

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the in vitro shear bond strength (SBS) of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and dual-cured, resin-modified calcium silicate material (Theracal PT) to composite resin, compomer, and bulk-fill composite, and to evaluate the bond failure mode under a stereomicroscope.

METHODS

Ninety acrylic specimens, each with a 4 mm diameter and 2 mm height central hole, were prepared. These specimens were randomly divided into two groups based on the capping materials: MTA and Theracal PT. Each group was further subdivided into three subgroups (n = 15) according to the restorative materials: composite resin, compomer, and bulk-fill composite. The specimens were then subjected to shear testing using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Post-test, the fracture locations were examined using a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey test.

RESULTS

The SBS values for the Theracal PT group were significantly higher than those for the MTA group (p < 0.001). Within the MTA groups, no significant differences were observed in SBS values across the different restorative materials. However, a significant difference was found between the mean SBS values of the Theracal PT + composite resin group and the Theracal PT + compomer group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Theracal PT shows promise in dentistry due to its superior bond strength. Given its bond values, Theracal PT appears capable of forming durable and long-lasting restorations by establishing reliable bonds with various restorative materials commonly used in dentistry.

Evaluating Glass Ionomer Cement Longevity in the Primary and Permanent Teeth-An Umbrella Review

The aim of this umbrella review was to evaluate the longevity of glass ionomer cement (GIC) as a restorative material for primary and permanent teeth. Research in the literature was conducted in three databases (MedLine/PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). The inclusion criteria were: (1) to be a systematic review of clinical trials that (2) evaluated the clinical longevity of GICs as a restorative material in primary and/or permanent teeth; the exclusion criteria were: (1) not being a systematic review of clinical trials; (2) not evaluating longevity/clinical performance of GICs as a restorative material; and (3) studies of dental restorative materials in teeth with enamel alterations, root caries, and non-carious cervical lesions. Twenty-four eligible articles were identified, and 13 were included. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 6 years. Different types of GICs were evaluated in the included studies: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), compomers, and low- and high-viscosity glass ionomer cement. Some studies compared amalgam and composite resins to GICs regarding longevity/clinical performance. Analyzing the AMSTAR-2 results, none of the articles had positive criteria in all the evaluated requisites, and none of the articles had an a priori design. The criteria considered for the analysis of the risk of bias of the included studies were evaluated through the ROBIS tool, and the results of this analysis showed that seven studies had a low risk of bias; three studies had positive results in all criteria except for one criterion of unclear risk; and two studies showed a high risk of bias. GRADE tool was used to determine the quality of evidence; for the degree of recommendations, all studies were classified as Class II, meaning there was still conflicting evidence on the clinical performance/longevity of GICs and their recommendations compared to other materials. The level of evidence was classified as Level B, meaning that the data were obtained from less robust meta-analyses and single randomized clinical trials. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first umbrella review approaching GIC in permanent teeth. GICs are a good choice in both dentitions, but primary dentition presents more evidence, especially regarding the atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) technique. Within the limitation of this study, it is still questionable if GIC is a good restorative material in the medium/long term for permanent and primary dentition. Many of the included studies presented a high risk of bias and low quality. The techniques, type of GIC, type of cavity, and operator experience highly influence clinical performance. Thus, clinical decision-making should be based on the dental practitioner's ability, each case analysis, and the patient's wishes. More evidence is needed to determine which is the best material for definitive restorations in permanent and primary dentition.