Are Glass-Ionomer Cement Restorations in Cervical Lesions More Long-Lasting than Resin-based Composite Resins? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To compare the the loss of retention and color match of glass-ionomer cements (GIC) and resin-based composites (RC) in noncarious cervical lesions. Other secondary outcomes (surface texture, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries) were evaluated in a systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials and Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, and Cochrane. We included only randomized clinical trials. The quality of the evidence for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE tool. Results: A total of 1530 articles were identified, but only 19 reports remained for analysis, all of which were judged to possess "unclear" risk of bias. GIC showed higher retention rates in all follow-ups (1 to 3 years, p 0.0001; at 5 years, p 0.00001). No difference was observed for marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation and secondary caries in all follow-ups (p > 0.05). RC showed better color match than GIC only at 2 years (p = 0.03). Higher roughness was observed in GIC in all follow-ups (at 1 year p = 0.0003; at 3 years p = 0.0004). Quality of evidence was graded as moderate or low due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision in some outcomes. Conclusion: The loss of retention of RMGIC/GIC was inferior to that of RC, but a higher roughness was observed in the RMGIC/GIC when compared to RC in all follow-ups of the clinical studies evaluated. In addition, the color match was better with RC only in the 2-year follow-up when compared to GIC. The quality of evidence was judged as moderate to low in these two outcomes. Schlagwörter: glass-ionomer cement, noncarious cervical lesions, resin composite, adhesives, systematic review, clinical evaluation