» Articles » PMID: 20638116

Clinical Performance of Cervical Restorations--a Meta-analysis

Overview
Journal Dent Mater
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2010 Jul 20
PMID 20638116
Citations 37
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objectives: To carry out a meta-analysis in order to assess the influencing factors on retention loss and marginal discoloration of cervical restorations made of composites and glass ionomer (derivates).

Methods: The literature was searched for prospective clinical studies on cervical restorations with an observation period of at least 18 months.

Results: Fifty clinical studies involving 40 adhesive systems matched the inclusion criteria. On average, 10% of the cervical fillings were lost and 24% exhibited marginal discoloration after 3 years. The variability ranged from 0% to 50% for retention loss and from 0% to 74% for marginal discoloration. Hardly any secondary caries was detected. When linear mixed models with a study and experiment effect were used, the analysis revealed that the adhesive/restorative class had the most significant influence, with 2-step self-etching adhesive systems performing best and 1-step self-etching adhesive systems performing worst; 3-step etch-and-rinse systems, glass ionomers/resin-modified glass ionomers, 2-step etch-and-rinse systems and polyacid-modified resin composites were ranked in between. Restorations placed in teeth whose dentin/enamel had been prepared/roughened showed a statistically significant higher retention rate than those placed in teeth with unprepared dentin (p<0.05). Beveling of the enamel and the type of isolation used (rubberdam/cotton rolls) had no significant influence.

Significance: The clinical performance of cervical restorations is significantly influenced by the type of adhesive system used and/or the adhesive class to which the system belonged and whether the dentin/enamel is prepared or not. 2-Step self-etching- and 3-step etch&rinse systems shall be chosen over 1-step self-etching systems and glass ionomer derivates. The dentin (and enamel) surface shall be roughened before placement of the restoration.

Citing Articles

Elucidating interfacial failure of cervical restorations using damage mechanics: A finite element analysis.

Tseng P, Chuang S, Schulz-Kornas E, Kunzelmann K, Kessler A J Dent Sci. 2025; 20(1):410-416.

PMID: 39873056 PMC: 11762617. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2024.05.033.


Comparative Evaluation of Micro-tensile Bond Strength in Non-carious Lesions After Different Pre-surface Treatments.

Mohan Dhas J, Dhanasekaran S, Venkatesh V Cureus. 2024; 16(9):e69963.

PMID: 39445300 PMC: 11496928. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.69963.


Direct Composite Restorations on Permanent Teeth in the Anterior and Posterior Region - An Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline - Part 1: Indications for Composite Restorations.

Wolff D, Frese C, Frankenberger R, Haak R, Braun A, Kramer N J Adhes Dent. 2024; 26:185-200.

PMID: 39286910 PMC: 11748041. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.b5748881.


A 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial of Three Bonding Techniques in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.

Pappa E, Gkavela G, Sampri I, Masouras K, Rahiotis C, Kakaboura A Medicina (Kaunas). 2024; 60(6).

PMID: 38929622 PMC: 11205971. DOI: 10.3390/medicina60061005.


Do bioactive materials show greater retention rates in restoring permanent teeth than non-bioactive materials? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Fernandes J, Contreras S, da Silva Spinola M, Batista G, Bresciani E, Caneppele T Clin Oral Investig. 2023; 28(1):44.

PMID: 38153565 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-023-05414-3.