Same question across reviews · CL0254
intervention :: Restorative materials -> Secondary caries
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
6
Questions
13
current versions
GRADE rated
5
Review overlap (CCA)
0.000
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Composite resin restorations vs Amalgam restorations Restoration failure (replacement, tooth/restoration fracture, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, toothache) · Permanent posterior teeth (molars/premolars) receiving direct restoration · At least 12 months follow-up (included studies followed 24 to 144 months) Failure Risk of Composite Resin and Amalgam Restorations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2025) | RR 0.96 [0.68, 1.34] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
ACTIVA bioactive restorative material vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 1 year of follow-up Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) | RR 22.80 [0.89, 584.17] | 1 study · 153 participants | Very low |
Bioactive restorative materials (RMGIC and compomer combined) vs Resin composite (RC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 1 year of follow-up, Overall (all bioactive vs resin composite) Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) | RR 0.54 [0.07, 4.10] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Ungraded |
Fluoride-containing amalgam (FAAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 2 or more years of follow-up Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) | RR 0.95 [0.45, 2.00] | 6 studies · 309 participants | Low |
Amalgam (AAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 2 or more years of follow-up Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) | RR 1.79 [1.04, 3.09] | 7 studies · 390 participants | Low |
Amalgam (AAG) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 2 or more years of follow-up Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) | RR 2.46 [1.42, 4.27] | 8 studies · 1135 participants | Moderate |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Secondary caries · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Parallel-group and split-mouth trials combined Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.93 [0.98, 3.80] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Secondary caries · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Split-mouth trials Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.30 [0.34, 4.97] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Secondary caries · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 5 to 7 years Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 2.14 [1.67, 2.74] | 2 studies · 921 participants | Low |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Absence of recurrent caries success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.878 [0.828, 0.915] | 38 (30 observed + 8 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Absence of recurrent caries success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.909 [0.865, 0.939] | 30 studies | Ungraded |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane | Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome | 0 studies | No studies |
Resin composite restorations (filling and bonding systems) containing antibacterial agents vs Composite restorations not containing antibacterial agents Secondary caries · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in… Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries (2013) · Cochrane | No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls. | 0 studies | No studies |