Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or lan...
Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Carine Weber Pires [verfasserIn] Djessica Pedrotti [verfasserIn] Tathiane Larissa Lenzi [verfasserIn] Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares [verfasserIn] Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann [verfasserIn] Rachel de Oliveira Rocha [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2018

Schlagwörter:	Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005, 32(2018), 0
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:32 ; year:2018 ; number:0

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ054369460

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ054369460
003	DE-627
005	20230503055726.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ054369460
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a RK1-715
100	0		\|a Carine Weber Pires \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
264		1	\|c 2018
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
650		4	\|a Dental Materials
650		4	\|a Evidence-Based Dentistry
650		4	\|a Pediatric Dentistry
653		0	\|a Dentistry
700	0		\|a Djessica Pedrotti \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Tathiane Larissa Lenzi \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Rachel de Oliveira Rocha \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Brazilian Oral Research \|d Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 \|g 32(2018), 0 \|w (DE-627)484403656 \|w (DE-600)2184278-4 \|x 18073107 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:32 \|g year:2018 \|g number:0
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a SSG-OLC-PHA
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 32 \|j 2018 \|e 0

Indexfelder

author_variant	c w p cwp d p dp t l l tll f z m s fzms p k z pkz r d o r rdor
matchkey_str	article:18073107:2018----::shraetovninlaeilorsoigotropiaye
hierarchy_sort_str	2018
callnumber-subject-code	RK
publishDate	2018
allfields	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Carine Weber Pires verfasserin aut Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars. Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry Djessica Pedrotti verfasserin aut Tathiane Larissa Lenzi verfasserin aut Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares verfasserin aut Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann verfasserin aut Rachel de Oliveira Rocha verfasserin aut In Brazilian Oral Research Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 32(2018), 0 (DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4 18073107 nnns volume:32 year:2018 number:0 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2018 0
spelling	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Carine Weber Pires verfasserin aut Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars. Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry Djessica Pedrotti verfasserin aut Tathiane Larissa Lenzi verfasserin aut Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares verfasserin aut Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann verfasserin aut Rachel de Oliveira Rocha verfasserin aut In Brazilian Oral Research Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 32(2018), 0 (DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4 18073107 nnns volume:32 year:2018 number:0 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2018 0
allfields_unstemmed	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Carine Weber Pires verfasserin aut Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars. Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry Djessica Pedrotti verfasserin aut Tathiane Larissa Lenzi verfasserin aut Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares verfasserin aut Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann verfasserin aut Rachel de Oliveira Rocha verfasserin aut In Brazilian Oral Research Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 32(2018), 0 (DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4 18073107 nnns volume:32 year:2018 number:0 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2018 0
allfieldsGer	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Carine Weber Pires verfasserin aut Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars. Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry Djessica Pedrotti verfasserin aut Tathiane Larissa Lenzi verfasserin aut Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares verfasserin aut Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann verfasserin aut Rachel de Oliveira Rocha verfasserin aut In Brazilian Oral Research Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 32(2018), 0 (DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4 18073107 nnns volume:32 year:2018 number:0 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2018 0
allfieldsSound	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 doi (DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng RK1-715 Carine Weber Pires verfasserin aut Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis 2018 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars. Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry Djessica Pedrotti verfasserin aut Tathiane Larissa Lenzi verfasserin aut Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares verfasserin aut Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann verfasserin aut Rachel de Oliveira Rocha verfasserin aut In Brazilian Oral Research Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005 32(2018), 0 (DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4 18073107 nnns volume:32 year:2018 number:0 https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e kostenfrei http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 32 2018 0
language	English
source	In Brazilian Oral Research 32(2018), 0 volume:32 year:2018 number:0
sourceStr	In Brazilian Oral Research 32(2018), 0 volume:32 year:2018 number:0
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry Dentistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Brazilian Oral Research
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Carine Weber Pires @@aut@@ Djessica Pedrotti @@aut@@ Tathiane Larissa Lenzi @@aut@@ Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares @@aut@@ Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann @@aut@@ Rachel de Oliveira Rocha @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2018-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	484403656
id	DOAJ054369460
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054369460</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503055726.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054369460</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carine Weber Pires</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental Materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence-Based Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djessica Pedrotti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tathiane Larissa Lenzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rachel de Oliveira Rocha</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Brazilian Oral Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2018), 0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)484403656</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2184278-4</subfield><subfield code="x">18073107</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Carine Weber Pires
spellingShingle	Carine Weber Pires misc RK1-715 misc Dental Materials misc Evidence-Based Dentistry misc Pediatric Dentistry misc Dentistry Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
authorStr	Carine Weber Pires
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)484403656
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	RK1-715
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	18073107
topic_title	RK1-715 Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis Dental Materials Evidence-Based Dentistry Pediatric Dentistry
topic	misc RK1-715 misc Dental Materials misc Evidence-Based Dentistry misc Pediatric Dentistry misc Dentistry
topic_unstemmed	misc RK1-715 misc Dental Materials misc Evidence-Based Dentistry misc Pediatric Dentistry misc Dentistry
topic_browse	misc RK1-715 misc Dental Materials misc Evidence-Based Dentistry misc Pediatric Dentistry misc Dentistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Brazilian Oral Research
hierarchy_parent_id	484403656
hierarchy_top_title	Brazilian Oral Research
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)484403656 (DE-600)2184278-4
title	Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ054369460 (DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e
title_full	Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
author_sort	Carine Weber Pires
journal	Brazilian Oral Research
journalStr	Brazilian Oral Research
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2018
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Carine Weber Pires Djessica Pedrotti Tathiane Larissa Lenzi Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann Rachel de Oliveira Rocha
container_volume	32
class	RK1-715
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Carine Weber Pires
doi_str_mv	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? a network meta-analysis
callnumber	RK1-715
title_auth	Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
abstract	Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
abstractGer	Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	0
title_short	Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis
url	https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010 https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107
remote_bool	true
author2	Djessica Pedrotti Tathiane Larissa Lenzi Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann Rachel de Oliveira Rocha
author2Str	Djessica Pedrotti Tathiane Larissa Lenzi Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann Rachel de Oliveira Rocha
ppnlink	484403656
callnumber-subject	RK - Dentistry
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010
callnumber-a	RK1-715
up_date	2024-07-03T22:46:27.341Z
_version_	1803599780086022144
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ054369460</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503055726.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2018 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ054369460</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RK1-715</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carine Weber Pires</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2018</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract This study aimed to compare the longevity of different conventional restorative materials placed in posterior primary teeth. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA statement and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016035775). A comprehensive electronic search without date or language restrictions was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) and Clinical Trials databases up to January 2017, selecting randomized clinical trials that assessed the longevity of at least two different conventional restorative materials performed in primary molars. Seventeen studies were included in this systematic review. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed and relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) calculated. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, extracted the data, and assessed the risk of bias. Restorations of primary molars with conventional glass ionomer cement showed increased risk of failure than compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, amalgam, and composite resin. Risk of bias was low in most studies (45.38% of all items across studies). Pediatric dentists should avoid conventional glass ionomer cement for restoring primary molars.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Dental Materials</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Evidence-Based Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Pediatric Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Dentistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Djessica Pedrotti</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Tathiane Larissa Lenzi</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fabio Zovico Maxnuck Soares</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Patricia Klarmann Ziegelmann</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rachel de Oliveira Rocha</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Brazilian Oral Research</subfield><subfield code="d">Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica, 2005</subfield><subfield code="g">32(2018), 0</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)484403656</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2184278-4</subfield><subfield code="x">18073107</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:32</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2018</subfield><subfield code="g">number:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0010</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/3a2d28bc316b4986a914891ea416c35e</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100400&lng=en&tlng=en</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1807-3107</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">32</subfield><subfield code="j">2018</subfield><subfield code="e">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3996477

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?