Clinical Performance of Non-Carious Cervical Restorations Restored with the "Sandwich Technique" and Composite Resin: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the retention rates of non-carious cervical restorations (NCCLs) constructed using the sandwich technique (a lining of glass-ionomer cement [GIC] or resin-modified glass-ionomer cement [RMGIC] and composite resin [CR]) with CR-only restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The search was performed in various databases, including the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Gray literature was inspected, as were ongoing and unpublished abstracts from the IADR (1990-2017). Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration bias risk tool. Data from primary and secondary outcomes were meta-analyzed at 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-ups using the random effects model. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Initially, a total of 3645 articles were selected. After selection by titles, abstracts, and full texts, 6 articles were retrieved, but three were follow-ups of the same RCT. Therefore, a total of four studies remained for analysis. All studies were at unclear risk for bias. Among all outcomes, only loss of retention was lower for the sandwich technique at the 3-year follow-up (risk ratio [RR]: 7.5; 95% CI: 2.1 to 27.2; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited number of available studies, higher retention rates in NCCL restorations were observed with the sandwich technique compared to CR-only restorations at the 3-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes were not influenced by the restorative technique. Except for retention rates, which were of moderate quality, the evidence quality of all secondary outcomes was low.

Randomized clinical trials of dental bleaching - Compliance with the CONSORT Statement: a systematic review.

We reviewed the literature to evaluate: a) The compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on bleaching with the CONSORT; and b) the risk of bias of these studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and other electronic databases, to find RCTs focused on bleaching (or whitening). The articles were evaluated in compliance with CONSORT in a scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. 185 RCTs were included for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received score 0 or 1. Protocol, flow chart, allocation concealment and sample size were more critical items, as 80% of the studies scored 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 16.7 ± 5.4 points, which represents 52.2% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among journal, country and period of time was observed (p < 0.02). Only 7.6% of the studies were judged at "low" risk; 62.1% were classified as "unclear"; and 30.3% as "high" risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating bleaching materials and techniques to the CONSORT is still low with unclear/high risk of bias.

Randomized clinical trials of dental bleaching - Compliance with the CONSORT Statement: a systematic review

Abstract We reviewed the literature to evaluate: a) The compliance of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on bleaching with the CONSORT; and b) the risk of bias of these studies using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool (CCRT). We searched the Cochrane Library, PubMed and other electronic databases, to find RCTs focused on bleaching (or whitening). The articles were evaluated in compliance with CONSORT in a scale: 0 = no description, 1 = poor description and 2 = adequate description. Descriptive analyses of the number of studies by journal, follow-up period, country and quality assessments were performed with CCRT for assessing risk of bias in RCTs. 185 RCTs were included for assessment. More than 30% of the studies received score 0 or 1. Protocol, flow chart, allocation concealment and sample size were more critical items, as 80% of the studies scored 0. The overall CONSORT score for the included studies was 16.7 ± 5.4 points, which represents 52.2% of the maximum CONSORT score. A significant difference among journal, country and period of time was observed (p < 0.02). Only 7.6% of the studies were judged at "low" risk; 62.1% were classified as "unclear"; and 30.3% as "high" risk of bias. The adherence of RCTs evaluating bleaching materials and techniques to the CONSORT is still low with unclear/high risk of bias.