Question · asked by 1 review

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration: Secondary caries

Population
Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
Intervention
Glass ionomer cement
Comparison
Resin composite restoration
Outcome
Secondary caries

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, GIC probably reduces secondary caries versus resin composite (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.91; moderate certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 50%Moderate 1 · 50%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Resin composite (RC)
Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 2 or more years of follow-up, Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, GIC probably reduces secondary caries versus resin composite (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.91; moderate certainty).
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) All outcomes
RR 0.50 [0.28, 0.91]14 studies · 1571 participantsModerate
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Resin composite (RC)
Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 1 year of follow-up, Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
Over 1 year in permanent teeth, GIC may lower secondary caries versus resin composite, but the estimate is imprecise and includes no effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.10-1.05; low certainty).
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) All outcomes
RR 0.33 [0.10, 1.05]5 studies · 380 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
2023 All outcomes
Not specified (search date reported only in Supplementary Table S1)63Low / Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.