Percorrer por autor "Panetta, Alessandro"
A mostrar 1 - 3 de 3
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- Evaluating glass ionomer cement longevity in the primary and permanent teeth - an umbrella reviewPublication . Panetta, Alessandro; Lopes, Pedro; Novaes, Tatiane Fernandes; Rio, Rute; Fernandes, Gustavo Vicentis Oliveira; Mello-Moura, Anna Carolina VolpiThe 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.
- Use of glass-ionomer cement as a restorative material : an umbrella reviewPublication . Panetta, Alessandro; Moura, Anna Carolina Volpi Mello de; Sousa, Rute Patrícia Alves do Rio Pereira deThe aim of this study was to evaluate, through an umbrella review, whether primary and permanent teeth can be definitively restored with glass ionomer cements. A systematic search of the studies available in the literature was conducted in the electronic databases MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Two independent, calibrated examiners. The eligibility criteria were: (1) to be a systematic review (2) to evaluate the clinical longevity of glass ionomer cements (GICs) in primary and permanent teeth (3) to be clinical trials. The systematic reviews that met these criteria were reviewed in their entirety and those who presented at least one of the following exclusion criteria were then considered ineligible: (1) not being a systematic review of clinical trials; (2) not evaluating the longevity/clinical performance of GICs; (3) studies of dental restorative materials in teeth with enamel alterations. Methodological quality was measured using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews by the ROBIS tool. The level of evidence analysis was performed using the GRADE tool. Twenty-four eligible articles were identified, only 13 articles were included. Glass ionomer cements seems to be a viable choice in both dentitions, but primary dentition presents more evidence, especially regarding the ART technique. There is conflicting evidence on which type of glass ionomer is the best and comparisons to other dental materials are lacking. In conclusion, more high-quality studies are needed with longer follow up periods (>6 years), especially in permanent teeth.
- Use of Glass-ionomer cement as a restorative material: a systematic reviewPublication . Panetta, Alessandro; Lopes, Pedro Campos; Novaes, Tatiane Fernandes; Rio, Rute; Mello-Moura, Anna Carolina VolpiBackground: The clinical applications of glass ionomers cements (GICs) are varied: restoration, lining material, sealing, hyper sensibility care and temporary cavity restoration. Due to the lack of physical properties, over time modifications of GICs were experimented and studied by the addition of metals, fibers, ceramics to the GIC powder in the attempt to overcome these problems and improve the material and clinical performance. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether primary and permanent teeth can be definitively restored with glass ionomer cements, based on the PICO(S) question “What is the clinical performance in primary and permanent teeth restored with glass ionomer cements?”, Methods: A systematic search of the studies available in the literature was conducted in the electronic databases MEDLINE/Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science. Two independent, calibrated examiners. The eligibility criteria were: (1) to be a systematic review (2) to evaluate the clinical longevity of GICs in primary and permanent teeth (3) to be clinical trials. The systematic reviews that met these criteria were reviewed in their entirety and those who presented at least one of the following exclusion criteria were then considered ineligible: (1) not being a systematic review of clinical trials; (2) not evaluating the longevity/clinical performance of GICs; (3) studies of dental restorative materials in teeth with enamel alterations. Results: A systematic literature search in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science databases identified 132 references potentially relevant. Twenty-four eligible articles were identified, only 13 articles were included. Methodological quality was measured using the AMSTAR-2 tool and the risk of bias of the included systematic reviews by the ROBIS tool. The level of evidence analysis was performed using the GRADE tool. Conclusions: Glass ionomer cements seems to be a viable choice in both dentitions, but primary dentition presents more evidence, especially regarding the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) technique. There is conflicting evidence on which type of glass ionomer is the best and comparisons to other dental materials are lacking. In conclusion, more high-quality studies are needed with longer follow up periods (>6 years), especially in permanent teeth.