Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34448916›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2021

Use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer in class II restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Cleber Paradzinski Cavalheiro, Helena Scherer, José Carlos Pettorossi Imparato, Fabrício Mezzomo Collares, Tathiane Larissa Lenzi

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Cleber Paradzinski CavalheiroSchool of Dentistry, Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Porto Alegre, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9402-1811
Helena SchererSchool of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9074-338X
José Carlos Pettorossi ImparatoSchool of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Sao Paulo, Avenida Prof. Lineu Prestes, São Paulo, 05508-000, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1990-2851
Fabrício Mezzomo CollaresSchool of Dentistry, Department of Materials Laboratory, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1382-0150
Tathiane Larissa LenziSchool of Dentistry, Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande Do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos, 2492, Rio Grande do Sul, 90035-003, Porto Alegre, Brazil. tathiane.lenzi@ufrgs.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-5217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo investigate the influence of an intermediate layer of a flowable resin composite in class II resin composite restorations. MATERIALS AND

methodsThe authors searched MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Embase, and Web of Science electronic databases, and the ClinicalTrials.gov website to identify laboratory and clinical studies that evaluated class II cavities with resin composite restorations with or without an intermediate layer of flowable resin composite. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias and the quality of the evidence. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan5.3 with fixed-effects model comparing bond strength (MPa), fracture strength (Newton), and clinical (number of failures) outcomes between restorative techniques (with or without flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer).

resultsFrom 1707 potentially eligible studies, 140 in vitro studies and 14 clinical studies were selected for full-text analysis, and 11 were included in the systematic review, being 7 in vitro and 4 clinical studies. There was no statistically significant difference between the restorative techniques considering the outcomes evaluated. The heterogeneity found was null. The risk of bias was classified as medium for in vitro studies and unclear in most clinical studies. The quality of the evidence of the clinical studies was low.

conclusionThe use of flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer does not improve the effectiveness of the class II restorations based on laboratory and clinical outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Flowable resin composite as an intermediate layer may be used for class II restorations; however, this technique does not improve the effectiveness of the class II restorations.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Restoration, PermanentComposite ResinsHumansComposite ResinsClass II restorationDental restorationDirect restorationFlowable resin compositeResin compositeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID34448916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.