Question · asked by 1 review
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration: Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation)
- Population
- Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious cervical lesions)
- Intervention
- Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid)
- Comparison
- Resin composite restoration
- Outcome
- Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation)
Across follow-up periods, there was no statistically significant difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation between GIC and resin composite restorations.
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 16.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 5 · 83.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 1 year, 18 months to 2 years, and 3 years, University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings, All types of cavities Across follow-up periods, there was no statistically significant difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation between GIC and resin composite restorations. Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.01 [-0.01, 0.03] | 9 studies · 2725 participants | GRADE not reported |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 3 years, Permanent dentition; university (majority), school, and private-practice settings across multiple countries (Turkey, Brazil, Sweden, India, Vietnam, Belgium, Germany, etc.) At 3 years there were no marginal adaptation failures and no difference between ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations (RD 0.00, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.02; low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 3 years, University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings, All types of cavities No unacceptable-marginal-adaptation events occurred in either group at 3 years (low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 1 year, University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings, All types of cavities Ion-releasing GIC restorations may have little or no difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation at 1 year (low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.01 [-0.02, 0.03] | 9 studies · 1386 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 18 months-2 years, Permanent dentition; university (majority), school, and private-practice settings across multiple countries (Turkey, Brazil, Sweden, India, Vietnam, Belgium, Germany, etc.) At 18 months to 2 years, no significant difference in marginal adaptation between ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; I2=94%; low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.03 [-0.02, 0.08] | 7 studies · 1018 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 1 year, Permanent dentition; university (majority), school, and private-practice settings across multiple countries (Turkey, Brazil, Sweden, India, Vietnam, Belgium, Germany, etc.) At 1 year, no significant difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation between ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations, though heterogeneity was high (RD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.03; I2=79%; low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD 0.01 [-0.02, 0.03] | 9 studies · 1386 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of… 2022 All outcomes | 21 May 2021 (databases searched until 21 May 2021; no date or language restriction) | 37 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
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.