RESUMO
AIM: This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to establish a clinically relevant hierarchy of the different adhesive and/or restorative approaches to restore cavitated root caries lesions through the synthesis of available evidence. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in Medline/Web of Science/Embase/ Cochrane Library/Scopus/grey literature. RCTs investigating ≥2 restorative strategies (restorative /adhesive materials) for root caries lesions in adult patients were included. Risk of bias within studies was assessed (Cochrane_RoB-2) and the primary outcome was survival rate of restorations at different follow-up times (6-/12-/24-months). Network meta-analyses were conducted using a random effects model stratified by follow-up times. I2-statistics assessed the ratio of true to total variance in the observed effects. All available combinations of adhesives (1-SE: one-step self-etch; 2-3ER: two-/three-step etch-and-rinse) and restorative materials (conventional composite (CC) as well as conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements (GIC, RMGIC)) were included. Risk of bias across studies and confidence in NMA (CINeMA) were assessed. RESULTS: 547 studies were identified and nine were eligible for the NMA. In total, 1263 root caries lesions have been restored in 473 patients in the included clinical trials. Patients involved were either healthy (n = 6 trials), living in nursing homes (n = 1 trial) or received head-and-neck radiotherapy (n = 2 trials). There was statistically weak evidence to favour either of material/material combination regarding the survival rate. A tendency for higher survival rate (24-months) was observed for 2-3ER/CC (OR24mths 2.65; 95%CI=1.45/4.84) as well as RMGIC (OR24mths 2.05; 95%CI=1.17/3.61) compared to GIC. These findings were though not statistically significant and confidence of the NMA was low. CONCLUSION: An evidence-based choice of restorative strategy for managing cavitated root caries lesions is currently impossible. There is a clear need for more standardised, well-designed RCTs evaluating the retention rate of root caries restoration approaches.
