scholarly journals A meta-analysis indicating extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) as an alternative to longer implants (≥ 8 mm) with bone augmentation

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoran Yu ◽  
Ruogu Xu ◽  
Zhengchuan Zhang ◽  
Yang Yang ◽  
Feilong Deng
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rate ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Bone Augmentation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Complications Rate

AbstractExtra-short implants, of which clinical outcomes remain controversial, are becoming a potential option rather than long implants with bone augmentation in atrophic partially or totally edentulous jaws. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes and complications between extra-short implants (≤ 6 mm) and longer implants (≥ 8 mm), with and without bone augmentation procedures. Electronic (via PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Cochrane Library) and manual searches were performed for articles published prior to November 2020. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing extra-short implants and longer implants in the same study reporting survival rate with an observation period at least 1 year were selected. Data extraction and methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) was assessed by 2 authors independently. A quantitative meta-analysis was performed to compare the survival rate, marginal bone loss (MBL), biological and prosthesis complication rate. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 and the quality of evidence was determined with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. 21 RCTs were included, among which two were prior registered and 14 adhered to the CONSORT statement. No significant difference was found in the survival rate between extra-short and longer implant at 1- and 3-years follow-up (RR: 1.002, CI 0.981 to 1.024, P = 0.856 at 1 year; RR: 0.996, CI 0.968 to 1.025, P  = 0.772 at 3 years, moderate quality), while longer implants had significantly higher survival rate than extra-short implants (RR: 0.970, CI 0.944 to 0.997, P < 0.05) at 5 years. Interestingly, no significant difference was observed when bone augmentations were performed at 5 years (RR: 0.977, CI 0.945 to 1.010, P = 0.171 for reconstructed bone; RR: 0.955, CI 0.912 to 0.999, P < 0.05 for native bone). Both the MBL (from implant placement) (WMD: − 0.22, CI − 0.277 to − 0.164, P < 0.01, low quality) and biological complications rate (RR: 0.321, CI 0.243 to 0.422, P < 0.01, moderate quality) preferred extra-short implants. However, there was no significant difference in terms of MBL (from prosthesis restoration) (WMD: 0.016, CI − 0.036 to 0.068, P = 0.555, moderate quality) or prosthesis complications rate (RR: 1.308, CI 0.893 to 1.915, P = 0.168, moderate quality). The placement of extra-short implants could be an acceptable alternative to longer implants in atrophic posterior arch. Further high-quality RCTs with a long follow-up period are required to corroborate the present outcomes.Registration number The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020155342).

scholarly journals Short implants (≤6 mm) versus longer implants with sinus floor elevation in atrophic posterior maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e029826 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qi Yan ◽  
Xinyu Wu ◽  
Meiying Su ◽  
Fang Hua ◽  
Bin Shi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Sinus Floor Elevation ◽  
Moderate Quality ◽  
Short Implants ◽  
Posterior Maxilla ◽  
Sinus Floor ◽  
Quality Evidence

ObjectivesTo compare the use of short implants (≤6 mm) in atrophic posterior maxilla versus longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation.DesignA systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs).Data sourcesElectronic searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane CENTRAL. Retrospective and prospective hand searches were also performed.Eligibility criteriaRCTs comparing short implants (≤6 mm) and longer implants (≥10 mm) with sinus floor elevation were included. Outcome measures included implant survival (primary outcome), marginal bone loss (MBL), complications and patient satisfaction.Data extraction and synthesisRisks of bias in and across studies were evaluated. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were undertaken. Quality of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.ResultsA total of seven RCTs involving 310 participants were included. No significant difference in survival rate was found for 1–3 years follow-up (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.74, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence) or for 3 years or longer follow-up (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.04, p=0.79, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). However, short implants (≤6 mm) showed significantly less MBL in 1–3 years follow-up (MD=−0.13 mm, 95% CI −0.21 to 0.05; p=0.001, I²=87%, low-quality evidence) and in 3 years or longer follow-up (MD=−0.25 mm, 95% CI −0.40 to 0.10; p=0.001, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence). In addition, short implant (≤6 mm) resulted in fewer postsurgery reaction (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.31, p<0.001, I²=40%, moderate-quality evidence) and sinus perforation or infection (RR 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.63, p=0.01, I²=0%, moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionsFor atrophic posterior maxilla, short implants (≤6 mm) are a promising alternative to sinus floor elevation, with comparable survival rate, less MBL and postsurgery reactions. Additional high-quality studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of short implants (≤6 mm).Trial registeration numberThe protocol has been registered at PROSPERO (CRD42018103531).

scholarly journals Surgical Treatments for Lumbar Spine Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanthika Wasinpongwanich ◽  
Tanawin Nopsopon ◽  
Krit Pongpirul
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Risk Ratio ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fusion Rate ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Spine Diseases

Purpose Surgical treatment is mandatory in some patients with lumbar spine diseases. To obtain spine fusion, many operative techniques were developed with different fusion rates and clinical results. This study aimed to collect randomized controlled trial (RCT) data to compare fusion rate, clinical outcomes, complications among Transforaminal Lumbar Interbody Fusion (TLIF), and other techniques for lumbar spine diseases. Methods A systematic literature search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases was searched for studies up to 13 February 2020. The meta-analysis was done using a random-effects model. Pooled risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval of fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complication in TLIF and other techniques for lumbar diseases. Results The literature search identified 3,682 potential studies, 15 RCTs (915 patients) were met our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Compared to other techniques, TLIF had slightly lower fusion rate (RR=0.84 [95% CI 0.72, 0.97], p=0.02, I2=0.0%) at 1-year follow-up while there was no difference on fusion rate at 2-year follow up (RR=1.06 [95% CI 0.96, 1.18], p=0.27, I2=69.0%). The estimated risk ratio of total adverse events (RR=0.90 [95% CI 0.59, 1.38], p=0.63, I2=0.0%) and revision rate (RR=0.78 [95%CI 0.34, 1.79], p=0.56, I2=39.0%) showed no difference. TLIF had approximately half an hour more operative time than other techniques (MD=31.88 [95% CI 5.33, 58.44], p=0.02, I2=92.0%). There was no significant difference between TLIF and other techniques in terms of the blood loss, and clinical outcomes. Conclusions Besides fusion rate at 1-year follow-up and operative time, our study demonstrated similar outcomes of TLIF with other techniques for lumbar diseases in regard to fusion rate, clinical outcomes, and complications.

Abstract 12022: Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Everolimus-Eluting Stents versus Sirolimus-Eluting Stents: Systematic Review and a Meta-Analysis of 14 Randomized Control Trials, Focused on Stent Thrombosis

Circulation ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 130 (suppl_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
TOSHIAKI TOYOTA ◽  
Hiroki Shiomi ◽  
Takeshi Morimoto ◽  
Takeshi Kimura
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Stent Thrombosis ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Pooled Analysis ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Artery Disease

Background: We sought to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between everolimus-eluting stent (EES) and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) with a meta-analysis method. The long-term clinical outcomes, especially stent thrombosis (ST), after EES versus SES implantation has not been clearly defined among trials directly comparing the 2 types of stents. Methods: We searched PubMed, Cochrane database, and ClinicalTrials.gov. for trials comparing outcomes between EES (Xience V/Promus) and SES (Cypher select/Cypher select plus) in patients with native coronary artery disease using randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. We selected the article reporting the longest follow-up outcomes from each RCT. The outcome measure was all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite ST, and target-lesion revascularization (TLR). ST was further classified as those occurring early (<=30 days), late (30-365 days), or very late (<365 days). Results: We identified 14 RCT comparing EES and SES including 2 trials reporting the longest follow-up outcomes as a pooled analysis. We analyzed 13,434 randomly assigned patients with the weighted follow-up period of 2.1 years (Follow-up <=1-year: 7 trials, and 3191 patients; >1-year: 7 trials, and 10243 patients). EES as compared to SES was associated with significantly lower risks for overall ST, and early ST (pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.30-0.81, P=0.01, and OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.18-0.99, P=0.046, respectively), while there was no significant difference in the risk for late ST and very late ST (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.17-1.43, P=0.19, and OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.23-1.85, P=0.43, respectively). EES as compared to SES was also associated with significantly lower risks for TLR (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-0.99, P=0.04). There was no significant difference in the risk for all-cause death, and MI between EES and SES. (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P=0.11, and OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.75-1.13, P=0.44, respectively). Conclusions: In the current meta-analysis of 14 RCT directly comparing EES with SES, implantation of EES as compared to SES implantation was associated with significantly lower risk for definite ST and TLR.

P1440Left atrial appendage closure for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation with Watchman device versus Amplatzer Cardiac Plug. Results of the multicenter Russian trial

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K V Davtyan ◽  
G Simonyan ◽  
A A Kalemberg ◽  
A H Topchyan ◽  
D S Lebedev ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Stroke Prevention ◽  
Atrial Appendage ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Watchman Device ◽  
Complications Rate

Abstract Background The data are limited on comparative efficacy and safety of the left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) using the Watchman device (WD) and Amplatzer Cardiac Plug (ACP) for stroke prevention in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. Objective To assess the safety and efficacy of the WD compared with ACP for stroke prevention and adverse events in patients with AF. Methods 200 consecutive patients (median age 67.5yrs, 94 female, median CHA2DS2VASc score - 4, median HASBLED score 3) with nonvalvular AF and contraindications to oral anticoagulation therapy from 5 medical centers in Russia, who undergone LAAO implantation using WD (n = 108; WD group) and ACP (n = 92; ACP group) were enrolled into this study. The coprimary end point was the composite of TIA/stroke and procedure-related complications during follow up.  Secondary end points included successful LAA occluder implantation rate and incidence rates of significant leakage. Patients were followed at 45 days, 3, 6 and 12 months after enrollment. At each follow-up visit the data regarding clinical events and healthcare utilization were collected. Results During the follow-up TIA/stroke has occurred in 6.2% of patients in the WD group with no such events in ACP group (6.2% vs 0%, p = 0.012). The composite safety-efficacy survival rate in WD group was 91.7% versus 92.4% in ACP group (p = 0.85). The periprocedural major complications rate (pulmonary trunk perforation with fatal haemotamponade, nonfatal haemotamponade with pericardiocentesis, device embolisation) was significantly higher in ACP group compared with WD group (5.4% vs 0%, p = 0.005). There was no significant difference in overall events rate between groups (3.7% vs 7.6%, p = 0.2). Successful LAA occluder implantation was performed in all 92 (100%) patients with ACP and in 105 (97,2%) with WD (p = 0.053). The significant leakage (≥5mm) was 3.03% in WD group with no such events in ACP group (3.03% vs 0%, p = 0.059). Conclusion LAAO using ACP was associated with higher major procedure-related complications rate. Despite a higher TIA/stroke rate in WD group, the composite efficacy and safety survival rate of LAAO using the WD and ACP was comparable during 12 month follow up.

scholarly journals Clinical outcomes and complications between FLACS and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery: a PRISMA-compliant Meta-analysis of 25 randomized controlled trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (7) ◽  
pp. 1081-1091
Author(s):  
Li Chen ◽  
◽  
Xiao Lin ◽  
Hao-Yu Li ◽  
Yi Du ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cataract Surgery ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Long Term Follow Up ◽  
Distant Visual Acuity ◽  
Phacoemulsification Cataract Surgery

AIM: To update and investigate the clinical outcomes and complications between femtosecond laser-assisted cataract surgery (FLACS) and conventional phacoemulsification cataract surgery (CPCS). METHODS: A Meta-analysis was performed using databases, including Pubmed, Embase, and the Cochrane library. At least one of the clinical outcomes and/or complications data in each included randomized controlled trials (RCT) was reported. The quality of the RCT was assessed with the Cochrane risk assessments tool. RESULTS: Overall, 25 RCTs including 3781 eyes were included. No statistically significant difference detected between FLACS and CPCS in terms of corrected distant visual acuity (CDVA), uncorrected distant visual acuity (UDVA), and central corneal thickness (CCT) at the long-term follow up, although FLACS showed better CDVA at 1wk postoperatively, and less increase in CCT at 1d and 1wk. FLACS had better postoperative endothelial cell count (ECC) at 1 and 4-6wk, while there was no significantly difference between FLACS and CPCS at 1d, 3 and 6mo [weighted mean difference (WMD): 51.54, 95% confidence interval (CI): -5.46 to 108.54, P=0.08; WMD: 48.52, 95%CI: -17.54 to 114.58, P=0.15; WMD: 12.17, 95%CI: -48.61 to 72.94, P=0.69, respectively]. Postoperative endothelial cell loss (ECL) of the FLACS was significantly lower than that of the CPCS at 1, 4-6wk, and 3mo (P=0.02, 0.008, 0.03, respectively). However, there was no significant difference between two groups at 6mo (WMD: -30.36, 95%CI: -78.84 to 18.12, P=0.22). No significant difference was discovered with respect to the macular edema [odds ratio (OR): 0.93, 95%CI: 0.42 to 2.05, P=0.85], capsular complication excluding posterior capsular tears (OR: 0.79, 95%CI: 0.42 to 1.50, P=0.47) and intraocular pressure change (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.39 to 1.72, P=0.60). However, posterior capsular tears were more common in CPCS group (OR: 0.12, 95%CI: 0.01 to 0.98, P=0.05). The effective phacoemulsification times were significantly lower in the FLACS group compared to the CPCS group (WMD: -0.78, 95%CI: -1.23 to -0.34, P=0.0006). CONCLUSION: No statistically significant difference is discovered between FLACS and CPCS in clinical outcomes at the long-term follow up. However, higher rate of posterior capsular tears is detected in patients receiving CPCS.

scholarly journals THORACOLUMBAR BURST FRACTURES, SHORT X LONG FIXATION: A META-ANALYSIS

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlos Alberto Assunção Filho ◽  
Filipe Cedro Simões ◽  
Gabriel Oliveira Prado
Keyword(s):  
Blood Loss ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Postoperative Period ◽  
Operative Time ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Thoracolumbar Burst Fractures ◽  
Kyphosis Correction ◽  
Burst Fractures ◽  
Significant Difference

ABSTRACT The number of fixed segments in the surgical treatment of thoracolumbar burst fractures remains controversial. This study aims to compare the results of short and long fixation in thoracolumbar burst fractures through a meta-analysis of studies published recently. MEDLINE and Cochrane databases were used. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative studies (prospective and retrospective) were selected. Data were analyzed with the software Review Manager. There was no statistically significant difference in the Cobb angle of preoperative kyphosis. Long fixation showed lower average measurements postoperatively (MD = 1.41; CI = 0.73-2.08; p<0.0001) and in the last follow-up (MD = 3.98; CI = 3.22-4.75; p<0.00001). The short fixation showed the highest failure rates (RD = 4.03; CI = 1.33-12.16; p=0.01) and increased loss of height of the vertebral body (MD = 1.24; CI = 0.49-1.98; p=0.001), with shorter operative time (MD = -24.54; CI = -30.16 - -18.91; p<0.00001). There was no significant difference in blood loss and clinical outcomes. The high rates of kyphosis correction loss with short fixation and the lower correction rate in the immediate postoperative period were validated. There was no significant difference in the blood loss rates because arthrodesis was performed in a short segment in the analyzed studies. The short fixation was performed in a shorter operative time, as expected. No study has shown superior clinical outcomes. The short fixation had worse rates of kyphosis correction in the immediate postoperative period, and increased loss of correction in long-term follow-up, making the long fixation an effective option in the management of this type of fracture.

scholarly journals Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review and meta-analysis.

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lamia Gadallah ◽  
Mahmoud Hamdy ◽  
Adel El Bardissy ◽  
Mohamed Abou El Yazeed
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Qualitative Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Tooth Pulp ◽  
Clinical Failure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Pulp Exposure

Background: Early childhood caries is a serious public health problem. When caries extend to involve the pulp, various forms of pulp treatment are tried to stimulate tooth repair. Although pulpotomy is the treatment of choice for vital primary tooth pulp exposure but there is a trend among many dentists to perform pulpectomies  in vital primary incisors. This study aimed to assess the effect of pulpotomy and pulpecomy in treatment of carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. Methods: We searched Pubmed and Cochrane library databases up to March, 2018, OpenGrey for grey literature and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials. Randomized controlled trials were included and assessed with Cochrane risk of bias tool . Primary outcomes were clinical failure and radiological failure. The effect sizes were calculated as risk ratios with 95%CI using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Results: Four trials were identified for qualitative assessment, only three trials were included in meta-analysis after exclusion of one trial due to its high risk of bias. The pooled results of the longest follow up period for clinical failure showed no statistically significant difference between pulpotomy and pulpectomy. The relative risk (RR) was e 2.69, 95% CI 0.76 to 9.58 for clinical failure. For radiographic failure, the sensitivity analysis showed RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.83 with a higher risk for radiographic failure in pulpectomy. The evidence was limited by the small number of trials included in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Both pulpotomy and pulpectomy can be used successfully in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. Further high quality studies comparing between pulpotomy and pulpectomy in primary incisors with longer follow up period till exfoliation time are needed.

scholarly journals Effect of Drug-Coated Balloon in Side Branch Protection for de novo Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yawei Zheng ◽  
Jie Li ◽  
Lingzhun Wang ◽  
Peng Yu ◽  
Haibo Shi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Treatment Strategies ◽  
Target Lesion ◽  
Side Branch ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Drug Coated Balloon

Background: At present, there are a variety of treatment strategies for percutaneous coronary intervention. The role of drug-coated balloon (DCB) in the treatment of side branch for de novo coronary bifurcated lesions (CBL) is unclear.Objective: To examine the effect of DCB in side branch protection for de novo CBL.Methods: Electronic databases, including Pubmed, Embase, the Web of science, Cochrance library, CNKI, CBM, WanFang Data and VIP were searched for studies that compared DCB with non-drug-coated balloon (NDCB) in side branch protection for de novo CBL from inception through July 7th, 2021. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary clinical outcomes included myocardial infarction (MI), cardiac death (CD). The angiographic outcomes included side branch late lumen loss (LLL), minimum lumen diameter (MLD), diameter stenosis (DS) and binary restenosis (BR). The target lesion failure (TLF) was also analyzed.Results: A total of 10 studies, including 5 randomized controlled trials and 5 non-randomized observational studies, with 934 patients were included. Meta-analysis results of angiographic outcomes suggested that DCB group had the less LLL, DS and BR and the higher MLD compared with NDCB group at follow-up (P &lt; 0.05). Meta-analysis results of clinical outcomes suggested that the significant difference in the TLR, MI and CD between DCB group and NDCB group has not been found yet (P &gt; 0.05). However, the MACE of DCB group was significantly less than that of NDCB group at 9-month follow-up [OR = 0.21, 95%CI (0.05, 0.84), P = 0.03] and 12-month follow-up [OR = 0.45, 95%CI (0.22, 0.90), P = 0.02]. In addition, there was no significant difference in TLF between DCB group and NDCB group (P &gt; 0.05).Conclusions: DCB had great effect in side branch protection for de novo CBL at short and medium-term follow-up with no reduction in the procedural success rate.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=267426, PROSPERO [Identifier: CRD42021267426].

Clinical Performance of Filled/Nanofilled Versus Nonfilled Adhesive Systems in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. E34-E59
Author(s):  
JL de Geus ◽  
BM Maran ◽  
KA Cabral ◽  
A Dávila-Sánchez ◽  
C Tardem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Performance ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Adhesive Systems ◽  
Cervical Lesions ◽  
Secondary Caries ◽  
Significant Difference

Clinical Relevance The use of filled adhesive systems does not influence the clinical performance of the adhesive restoration in noncarious cervical lesions. SUMMARY Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis was to investigate the clinical performance of filled vs unfilled adhesive systems when applied in noncarious cervical lesions. Methods and Materials: A systematic search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, LILACS, BBO, Cochrane Library, and SIGLE. Gray literature was also screened. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included. The risk of bias of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to compare the retention rate, marginal discoloration, and secondary caries of noncarious cervical lesions restored with filled adhesives vs unfilled adhesives. The quality of the body of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: A total of 3662 studies were identified after removal of duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained for qualitative analyses and 28 studies for the meta-analysis. Only one study was judged to have a low risk of bias, and the other 28 were considered to have unclear risk of bias. There was no statistically significant difference between filled adhesives compared with unfilled adhesives in relation to loss of retention, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries at any of the follow-up periods (12–18 months, 24–30 months, 3 years, and 5 years or longer). The quality of evidence was graded as moderate for most outcomes at the respective follow-ups, except when there was an explained heterogeneity, which occurred mainly for loss of retention at the 12-month to 3-year follow-up. The results did not depend on whether microfilled or nanofilled adhesives had been investigated. Conclusions: The addition of fillers into the composition of adhesive systems did not increase the clinical performance (retention rates, marginal discoloration, or secondary caries) of composite restorations placed in noncarious cervical lesions when compared with unfilled adhesives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document