Cochrane · intervention · CD010526
Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations
Schenkel, AB, Veitz‐Keenan, A · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
12
current version
GRADE rated
3
No studies
1
Included studies
8
as reported
No studies 1 · 8.3%Ungraded 8 · 66.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 3 · 25%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Adults or children with at least one restoration in a posterior permanent tooth undergoing a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration | All included trials were conducted in patients with solely adult dentition (all participants over 15 years of age); trials recruited between 44 and 351 participants, mean 99 per trial (over 700 participants across 8 trials) |
| Intervention | Any type of dental cavity liner placed under a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration on a posterior tooth, including but not limited to calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, flowable composite, zinc phosphate cement, zinc and eugenol cement | Calcium hydroxide (n=3); Glass ionomer (n=2); Resin-modified glass ionomer (n=3); Flowable composite (n=1) |
| Comparison | Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration on a posterior tooth directly bonded to the tooth without the use of a dental cavity liner | No liner (n=8) |
| Outcomes | Postoperative hypersensitivity to hot, cold, biting, chewing, and/or sweets within 1 month (VAS or present/absent); Restoration failure (survival time of the restoration, minimum 1-year follow-up); Cost of materials; Adverse events (pulpal involvement, tooth fracture, hypersensitivity reactions to the materials, or any other adverse event) | Postoperative hypersensitivity (n=7); Restoration failure (n=4); Cost of materials (n=1); Adverse events (n=0) |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled clinical trials (parallel and split-mouth designs) | Randomized controlled trials (n=8): parallel-group (n=5); split-mouth (n=3) |
| Timing | Postoperative hypersensitivity within 1 month (up to 30 days); restoration survival with a minimum 1-year follow-up | Follow-up ranged from 24 hours to 2 years |
Search date: 2018-11. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE Ovid; Embase Ovid; LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library
Questions and results
Show all 3 versionsDental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)
Population: Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (time in seconds) 1 week | MD 6 [1.36, 10.64] | 1 study | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) 24 hours | RR 0.26 [0.11, 0.64] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) 1 week | MD -0.20 [-0.67, 0.26] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 2 years | Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up; no failures were shown in either group (effect not estimable). | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year | RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.00] 0 [-7, 97] per 1000 | 4 studies | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) 1 week | MD -0.33 [-0.43, -0.23] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) 1 week | RR 0.56 [0.26, 1.17] -44 [-74, 17] per 1000 | 3 studies | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cost of materials | One study (Strober 2013) reported cost, concluding that eliminating a resin-modified glass ionomer lining could save approximately USD 4.50 per filling (about USD 2000 per dentist per year). No comparative effect… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Adverse events | None reported. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies (0 studies contributed adverse-events data). | 0 studies | No studies |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) 1 month | MD -0.20 [-0.31, -0.09] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) 1 month | RR 0.44 [0.15, 1.34] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) 1 month | MD -0.33 [-0.76, 0.11] | 2 studies | Ungraded |