Same question across reviews · CL0175
intervention :: Glass ionomer / ART -> Other outcome
ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
14
Questions
40
current versions
GRADE rated
10
Review overlap (CCA)
0.007
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Occlusion · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
Cavity liner (calcium hydroxide, glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified calcium silicate/TheraCal LC, hydraulic calcium silicate/MTA or Biodentine, flowable composite, or other liner material) vs No cavity liner or a different liner material Treatment failure · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · >=12 months Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) | No significant difference; 96.5% of treated teeth remained vital | 12 studies · 1184 participants | Very low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Integrity of contact point · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 to 5 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 0.99 [0.91, 1.08] | 3 studies · 229 participants | High |
Cavity liner (calcium hydroxide, glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified calcium silicate/TheraCal LC, hydraulic calcium silicate/MTA or Biodentine, flowable composite, or other liner material) vs No cavity liner or a different liner material Tooth survival · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · >=12 months Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) | No significant difference; 99.4% survival in all groups | 12 studies · 1184 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Adequate color or translucency · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.02 [0.97, 1.07] | 6 studies · 600 participants | Moderate |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Proper anatomic form · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] | 8 studies · 1044 participants | High |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Absence of wear · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Proper surface texture or luster · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1.5 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.00 [0.97, 1.02] | 4 studies · 720 participants | High |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive (Transbond XT) First-time bracket failure · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · Before and after treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | No differences were observed in the proportions of patients experiencing first-time bracket failures when participants were bonded with either resin adhesive or RM-GIC (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer (GIC) permanent cement vs Glass ionomer cement or zinc phosphate cement Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · GIC Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.33 [2.56, 9.03] | 182 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, or glass carbomer Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-48 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.9-16.9% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-36 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 2.9-25.6% | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no… · 12-48 months, Restorative technique (ART) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.2-37.1% | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration Restoration success/failure · Children (5-7 years) with caries in primary teeth · 24 months Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | RR 1.07 [0.91, 1.27] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 29.9 | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-60 months (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 7.6-16.6% | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration Restoration success/failure · Children (5-7 years) with caries in primary teeth · 12 months Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | RR 0.93 [0.83, 1.06] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study | Very low |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 5 years · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 5 years Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond) · At debond; follow-up 17.6 months Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment (2019) · Cochrane | RR 1.17 [0.69, 1.99] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets Number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond) · At debond; follow-up 17.6 months Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment (2019) · Cochrane | RR 1.18 [0.45, 3.12] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Participant experience · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | No studies reported on participant experience for this comparison. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Participant experience (dental anxiety) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | MD 0.00 [-0.52, 0.52] | 1 study · 57 participants | Ungraded |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic) Pain (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 2.22 [0.51, 9.61] | 1 study | Ungraded |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Pain · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Pain: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes First-time bond failure · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent… Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Pain · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Pain: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.41 [0.35, 0.47] | 1 study | Ungraded |
One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes Decalcification (presence or absence of decay around the attachment) · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent… Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Pain (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth · Single and multiple lesions Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.44 [0.45, 4.60] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Taste preference (patient preference) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer). | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate Taste preference (patient preference) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Clark 2003: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 5 years · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 5 years Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique Outcome NR · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth,… Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria. | 0 studies | No studies |
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique Outcome NR · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth,… Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria. | 0 studies | No studies |
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic… · 12 months Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (2009) · Cochrane | OR 0.64 [0.10, 4.15] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |