Assessment of the success rates of high viscosity glass ionomer cement restorations in atraumatic restorative treatment

a scoping review

Abstract

Aim: This scoping review aimed to compare the success rate of restorations using five different brands of High Viscosity Glass Ionomer Cement (HVGIC), reference material in Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART).

Methods: Searches were carried out in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. OpenGrey and Google Scholar searches were also performed. Inclusion criteria were studies (clinical trials and follow-up studies) that evaluated the success of restorations using HVGIC. Title, abstract, and full text of the references were evaluated by two authors. Articles that met the inclusion criteria were included. Data extraction was performed. Cox regression models were created to compare the success rate of restorations produced with different types of HVGIC. The results were reported as odds ratio (OR) and confidence intervals (CI). Kaplan Meyer analyses were performed to calculate the HVGIC restorations’ probability of success.

Results: Nine articles evaluating ChemFil Rock, ChemFlex, Equia Fil, Ketac Molar, or Fuji IX were included. Restorations with glass ionomer cements Fuji IX (OR = 3.51; CI = 1.96 - 6.28), Ketac Molar (OR = 4.01; CI = 2.40-6.68), and ChemFlex (OR = 4.20; CI = 1.01-17.66) had a significantly higher success rate than those with ChemFil Rock. EquiaFil achieved the second lowest efficacy, slightly higher than ChemFil Rock.

Conclusion: Restorations with Fuji IX, Ketac Molar, and ChemFlex showed high success rates over the ART evaluation time.