Glass ionomer cement vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC): Secondary caries
- Population
- Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
- Intervention
- Glass ionomer cement
- Comparison
- Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
- Outcome
- Secondary caries
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 2 or more years of follow-up, Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty). Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) All outcomes | RR 1.92 [1.03, 3.56] | 7 studies · 1193 participants | Moderate |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 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) | 63 | Low / Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 1 review
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.