Resumo:
En
|
Texto:
En
|
PDF:
En
ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the clinical longevity of Class I and II composite resin restorations with and without using sonic energy through a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Material and Methods: Five databases were consulted: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, VHL-LILACS, and BBO and gray literature. The search was carried out in January 2024. The inclusion criteria comprised clinical trials evaluating the success/longevity of composite resin restorations with and without sonic energy. RoB and ROBINS-I assessed the risk of bias. The meta-analysis analyzed the number of restorations with alpha USPHS scores. Heterogeneity was assessed (I2 index, p<0.05). Certain evidence was assessed using the GRADE tool. Results: A total of 8,582 studies were identified, including four studies, 2 RCTs, and two controlled clinical trials, with moderate and low risk of bias, respectively. No difference was observed in the longevity (p>0.05) for: anatomical shape (CI=1.05 [0.95,1.15]; I2=0%; p=0.37); color stability (CI=1.02 [0.93,1.13; I2=0%, p=0.65); marginal adaptation (CI=1.05 [0.95,1.16]; I2=%; p=0.38); postoperative sensitivity (CI=1.01 [0.93,1.10]; I2=0%; p=0.80); secondary caries (CI=1.01 [0.93,1.10]; I2=0%; p=0.80); marginal discoloration (CI=1.05 [0.95,1.16]; I2=0%; p=0.38), surface texture (CI=1.09 [0.97,1.23]; I2=19%; p=0.14) and retention (CI=1.00 [1.91,1.10]; I2=0%; p=1.00). The certainty of the evidence was very low. Conclusion: No evidence supports using sonic energy for direct composite resin restorations, regardless of the technique and the restored tooth. More robust and well-conducted studies should be performed. Objective metaanalysis. metaanalysis meta analysis. analysis Methods consulted PubMed Library Science Scopus VHLLILACS, VHLLILACS VHL LILACS, LILACS VHL-LILACS 2024 successlongevity success ROBINSI ROBINS bias scores I2 (I index p<0.05. p005 p p<0.05 . 0 05 p<0.05) tool Results 8582 8 582 8,58 identified RCTs respectively p>0.05 (p>0.05 CI=1.05 CI105 CI 1 (CI=1.0 0.95,1.15 095115 95 15 [0.95,1.15] I2=0% I20 p=0.37 p037 37 p=0.37) CI=1.02 CI102 02 0.93,1.13 093113 93 13 [0.93,1.13 p=0.65 p065 65 p=0.65) 0.95,1.16 095116 16 [0.95,1.16] I2=% p=0.38 p038 38 p=0.38) CI=1.01 CI101 01 0.93,1.10 093110 10 [0.93,1.10] p=0.80 p080 80 p=0.80) p=0.38, , CI=1.09 CI109 09 0.97,1.23 097123 97 23 [0.97,1.23] I2=19% I219 19 p=0.14 p014 14 CI=1.00 CI100 00 1.91,1.10 191110 91 [1.91,1.10] p=1.00. p100 p=1.00 p=1.00) Conclusion tooth wellconducted well conducted performed 202 p00 p<0.0 858 58 8,5 p>0.0 (p>0.0 CI=1.0 CI10 (CI=1. 0.95,1.1 09511 9 [0.95,1.15 I2=0 p=0.3 p03 3 0.93,1.1 09311 [0.93,1.1 p=0.6 p06 6 [0.95,1.16 I2= [0.93,1.10 p=0.8 p08 0.97,1.2 09712 [0.97,1.23 I2=19 I21 p=0.1 p01 1.91,1.1 19111 [1.91,1.10 p10 p=1.0 20 p0 p<0. 85 5 8, p>0. (p>0. CI=1. CI1 (CI=1 0.95,1. 0951 [0.95,1.1 p=0. 0.93,1. 0931 [0.93,1. 0.97,1. 0971 [0.97,1.2 I2=1 1.91,1. 1911 [1.91,1.1 p1 p=1. p<0 p>0 (p>0 CI=1 (CI= 0.95,1 095 [0.95,1. p=0 0.93,1 093 [0.93,1 0.97,1 097 [0.97,1. 1.91,1 191 [1.91,1. p=1 p< p> (p> CI= (CI 0.95, [0.95,1 p= 0.93, [0.93, 0.97, [0.97,1 1.91, [1.91,1 (p 0.95 [0.95, 0.93 [0.93 0.97 [0.97, 1.91 [1.91, 0.9 [0.95 [0.9 [0.97 1.9 [1.91 0. [0. 1. [1.9 [0 [1. [ [1