Abstract
Background: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. Methods: A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Results: Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). Conclusions: Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.
Highlights
The present systematic review was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the established Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [36]
The review question, “Is the bond strength of self-adhesive flowable composites comparable or even better than glass ionomer cements to primary teeth?”, was formulated using the PICOS (Population; Intervention; Comparison; Outcome; Study Design) framework as follows: Population: Primary teeth
No statistically significant difference was found between self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) versus glass ionomer cements (GICs) (Mean Difference (MD) 1.29; 95% CI −1.75 to 4.33, p = 0.41, heterogeneity: Tau2 = 6.21; Chi2 = 14.85, df = 2 (p = 0.0006); I2 = 87%) (Figure 5)
Summary
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. The introduction of composite resins in 1962 [1] revolutionized restorative dentistry, allowing more conservative, predictable, and highly aesthetic dental reconstructions [2,3]. Retention and stability of composite resins on dental tissue are provided by adhesive systems through the creation of a micromechanical bond [4,5]. Adhesive systems have improved, increasing bonding properties and enhancing the interaction between the resinous functional monomers and the mineral constituents of hydroxyapatite by the formation of chemical bonds [6,7]. The latest generations of adhesives allow effective, long-lasting bonds and a simplification of the operative steps to be obtained [8,9]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
