↓ Skip to main content

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Brazilian oral research, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
114 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
Published in
Brazilian oral research, March 2018
DOI 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010
Pubmed ID
Authors

Carine Weber Pires, Djessica Pedrotti, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi, Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares, Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann, Rachel de Oliveira Rocha

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 114 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 114 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 21 18%
Student > Bachelor 14 12%
Other 9 8%
Student > Postgraduate 8 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 26 23%
Unknown 30 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 66 58%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 4%
Materials Science 3 3%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Computer Science 1 <1%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 32 28%