Dentists must regularly determine the best adhesive cementation protocol for glass-ceramic restorations on posterior teeth.
A few in vivo follow-up studies have been published reporting data for randomized clinical trials on this topic.
The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to analyze the clinical performance of glass-ceramic posterior restorations by using a descriptive synthesis based on the integrity of the tooth and restoration under different cementation protocols for self-adhesive or conventional resin cements.
Materials and Methods
By a consultation of several electronic databases were identified relevant clinical trials. Restoration and tooth integrity were the 2 aspects considered for the meta-analysis.
Only three prospective randomized or quasi-randomized clinical trials, published in English from 2012 onward, were selected and statistically analyzed. The integrity of the tooth and restoration was assessed at the baseline and 1 year after the restorative intervention.
The statistical analyses did not show any significant differences between the two type of cementation in terms of the integrity of the tooth and restoration.
This meta-analysis indicated no clinical differences in the ceramic cementation using a self-adhesive or conventional resin cement after the 1-year follow-up period because both resin cements showed adequate properties for tooth and restoration integrity.
The limitation of this meta analysis might be the restricted limited number of the studies included, three, and the span time of observation that was only one year; on the contrary, the minimal number of adverse effects reported in the final analysis could be favorably interpreted for the technique used, as a technique predictable independently from the type of luting protocol used.
Prosthodontics 23 October 2019
Digital Dentistry 05 June 2019
Digital Dentistry 03 April 2019
Restorative dentistry 08 April 2020