ABSTRACT
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Although studies have explored the physical and mechanical properties of different composite resins with the preheating technique, evidence that the use of preheated restorative composite resin as a luting agent influences the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review was to answer the question: Does the use of preheated restorative composite resin as a luting agent influence the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses? MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seven databases and nonpeer-reviewed literature were searched, without language or year restrictions. Studies directly comparing the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses cemented with preheated restorative composite resin or resin cement were considered eligible for inclusion. Assessment of the risk of bias was based on a 9-item checklist. RESULTS: Of 2109 retrieved articles, 4 in vitro studies met the inclusion criteria. Three of them concluded that preheated restorative composite resin produced a greater mismatch than resin cement, and the remaining study reported that composite resin improved the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses. All included studies had a medium risk of bias. The high level of heterogeneity among the studies precluded meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of preheated restorative composite resin as a luting agent seems to negatively influence the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses. It was not possible to evaluate whether variables such as the formulation of the resin material or its heating time and temperature influence the adaptation of fixed dental prostheses because of the high heterogeneity of the included studies.
ABSTRACT
Uma revisão sistemática foi realizada para responder a seguinte pergunta: O uso de resina composta preaquecida como agente de cimentação influencia na adaptação de restaurações indiretas? Foram selecionados estudos que avaliaram a adaptação das restaurações indiretas, sobre dentes naturais ou artificiais preparados, e que compararam a resina composta restauradora preaquecida, como agente de cimentação com o cimento resinoso. A avaliação do risco de viés foi baseada em uma lista de verificação de 9 itens. MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS e BBO via Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library e bancos de dados da literatura cinzenta foram pesquisados, sem restrição de idioma ou ano. Dos 2046 estudos potencialmente elegíveis, 4 estudos in vitro foram incluídos nesta revisão. Enquanto em um dos estudos incluídos a resina composta restauradora preaquecida melhorou a adaptação das restaurações indiretas; de acordo com os outros três estudos, o material produziu uma desadaptação significativamente maior em comparação ao cimento resinoso. Todos os estudos incluídos apresentaram médio risco de viés. O elevado nível de heterogeneidade entre os estudos excluiu a realização de meta-análise. Os estudos incluídos nesta revisão sistemática parecem sugerir que a resina composta preaquecida, quando usada como agente cimentante, não influencia favoravelmente a adaptação das restaurações indiretas. A alta heterogeneidade entre os estudos indica a necessidade de mais investigações com um melhor desenho metodológico para concluir esta questão. (AU)
A systematic review was performed to answer the following research question: Does the use of preheated restorative resin composite as luting agent influence on the adaptation of indirect restorations? Studies evaluating the adaptation of indirect restorations in prepared natural and artificial teeth, and compared preheated restorative composite resin as luting agent with resin cement were selected. Assessment of the risk of bias was based on an 9-item checklist. The MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS and BBO via Virtual Health Library, Cochrane Library, and the grey literature databases were searched, without language or year restriction. From 2046 retrieved articles, 4 in vitro studies were included in this review. While in one of the included studies preheated restorative composite resin improved the adaptation of indirect restorations; according to the other three studies, the material produced a significantly greater mismatch compared to resin cement. All included studies were considered to be at medium risk of bias. The high level of heterogeneity across the studies excluded meta-analysis. The studies included in this systematic review seems to suggest that preheated restorative resin composite, used as luting agent, does not influence favorably the adaptation of indirect restorations. The high heterogeneity across the studies indicates the need for further investigations with a better methodological design to conclude this question. (AU)
