The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0108-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
The author has been actively involved in the promotion; teaching and research of HVGIC based tooth restorations in the past (from 1998 to 2007).
SM developed the concept and outline and wrote this paper.
To develop a synthesis within a Bayesian probability framework of previously established evidence, in order to derive an overall conclusion about the hypothesis (H1): ‘High-viscosity glass-ionomer cements (HVGIC) are inferior to silver amalgam as (load bearing) restorative materials for permanent posterior teeth’.
Following Bayesian method, the prior Odds that H1 is true (established from past uncontrolled clinical longitudinal and laboratory trials), the Likelihood Ratio incorporating new evidence (established from recent meta-epidemiological studies and systematic reviews of controlled clinical trials), as well as the posterior hypothesis Odds in view of the new evidence, were calculated.
The prior Odds that HVGICs are clinically inferior to amalgam as restorative materials in posterior permanent teeth in relation to the hypothesis that this is not so was 1.12 to 1. The Likelihood Ratio based on new evidence in favor the hypothesis was zero and the subsequent posterior Odds 0 to 1. Therefore, based on the new evidence, the Odds that HVGICs are clinically inferior to amalgam as restorative materials in posterior permanent teeth degreased from 1.12 to zero.
The current evidence suggests lack of support for the hypothesis that high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements are inferior to silver amalgam as restorative materials for permanent posterior teeth. Should future research to this topic uphold the current findings, a wider range of clinical benefits for both patient and care provider, beyond appropriate restoration longevity for placing HVGIC based restorations may apply.
Additional file 1: Table S1. Extracted event data. (XLS 127 kb)12903_2015_108_MOESM1_ESM.xls
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V, Leal SC, Oliveira LB, Bezerra AC, Bönecker M. Absence of carious lesions at margins of glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations: a meta- analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2009;10:41–6. PubMed
Ericson D, Kidd EAM, McComb D, Mjor I, Noack MJ. Minimally invasive dentistry – concept and techniques in cariology. Oral Health Prev Dent. 2003;1:59–72. PubMed
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of high-viscosity GIC based ART compared to that of conventional amalgam restorations - evidence from a systematic review update. S Afr Dent J. 2012;67:329–31.
Wang X, Nie J, Cai X, Yengopal V, Mickenautsch S. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review of Chinese trials. J Minim Interv Dent. 2012;5:377–415.
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Failure rate of atraumatic restorative treatment using high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement compared to conventional amalgam restorative treatment in primary and permanent teeth: a systematic review update - III. J Minim Interv Dent. 2012;5:273–331.
Mickenautsch S, Yengopal V. Do laboratory results concerning high-viscosity glass ionomers versus amalgam for tooth restorations indicate similar effect direction and magnitude than that of controlled clinical trials? - A meta-epidemiological study. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0132246. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R. Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004;29:481–508. PubMed
Naasan MA, Watson TF. Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1998;11:36–45. PubMed
Pocock SJ. Clinical trials – A practical approach . John Wiley & Sons Ltd., 1983; p. 125.
Gelman A. Objections to Bayesian statistics. Bayes Analysis. 2008;3:445–50. CrossRef
Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E. Comparison of two tooth-saving preparation techniques for one-surface cavities. ASDC J Dent Child. 2002;69:16–26. PubMed
Rahimtoola S, van Amerongen E, Maher R, Groen H. Pain related to different ways of minimal intervention in the treatment of small caries lesions. ASDC J Dent Child. 2000;67:123–7. PubMed
Mickenautsch S, van't Hof MA, Frencken JE. Oral health service systems in Gauteng Province, South Africa. East Afr Med J. 2007;84:178–82. PubMed
Estupiñán-Day S, Milner T, Tellez M. Oral health of low income children: procedures for atraumatic restorative treatment (PRAT) - Final report. PAHO. 2006; Project number 091024: ATN/JF-7025-RG.
Mickenautsch S, Munshi I, Grossman ES. Comparative cost of ART and conventional treatment within a dental school clinic. S Afr Dent J. 2002;57:52–8.
FDI World Dental Federation. FDI policy statement on dental amalgam and the Minamata Convention on Mercury: adopted by the FDI General Assembly: 13 September 2014, New Delhi, India. Int Dent J. 2014;64:295–6. CrossRef
- Are high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements inferior to silver amalgam as restorative materials for permanent posterior teeth? A Bayesian analysis
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II