Glass ionomer cements compared with composite resin in restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: Restoring noncarious cervical lesions are challenging to clinical practice. This study aimed to compare the clinical performance/longevity of glass ionomer cements (GIC) and composite resins (CR) used for noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) through a systematic review and meta-analysis (MA). Data: Randomized and controlled clinical trials and nonrandomized clinical trials, which compared the clinical performance/longevity of CR and GIC (conventional and/or resin-modified) in the treatment of NCCL, were included. Source: The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Seven MAs were performed considering (1) the clinical performance of the parameters in common: retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, color, anatomic form, surface texture and (2) a follow-up time of 12, 24 and 36 months. The prevalence of successful restorations and the total number of restorations per clinical parameter/follow-up time were used to calculate the relative risk (95% CI). Study selection: After screening of the studies, 13 studies were used for quantitative synthesis. The risk difference (CI 95%, a, I-2) between GIC and CR for anatomic form was 0.00 (-0.02, 0.02; p = 0.83; 0%); for color was -0.02 (-0.08, 0.04; p = 0.48; 80%); for surface texture was -0.02 (-0.06, 0.02; p = 0.31; 63%); for secondary caries was -0.00 (-0.01, 0.01; p = 0.87; 0%); for marginal discoloration was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.03; p = 0.23; 3%); for marginal adaptation was 0.01 (-0.01, 0.04; p = 0.34; 32%) and for retention was 0.07 (0.02, 0.12; p = 0.003; 76%). Conclusion: GIC showed a clinical performance significantly higher than CR in regard to retention, whereas for the other parameters, GIC was similar to CR.