ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of glass ionomer cements (GICs) compared to other restorative materials in the treatment of radiation-related caries. METHODS: Two independent researchers searched literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs/BBO) and the grey literature to identify clinical trials that compared GICs with other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries. The clinical criteria considered for the performance of the restorations were based on the parameters of marginal adaptation/anatomical form, secondary caries, retention, and cumulative failures of the restorations. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: From a total of 511, only four articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conventional GIC restorations presented higher marginal adaptation failures than the resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs) and composite restorations in all of the follow-up periods. Secondary caries was not observed in conventional GIC restorations throughout the follow-up periods, in three out of four of the included studies. RM-GICs and composite restorations showed significantly lower cumulative failure rates than conventional GICs at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups. CONCLUSION: Due to insufficient scientific evidence, it was not possible to conclude that GICs are more effective than other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries.
