Question · asked by 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material: Secondary prevention of caries

Population
Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis
Intervention
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration
Comparison
No cavity liner or a different liner material
Outcome
Secondary prevention of caries

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to secondary caries prevention (~100% prevention across groups; low certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
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
Secondary caries prevention · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · >=12 months, Dental clinical settings (multiple countries)
Cavity liners may make little or no difference to secondary caries prevention (~100% prevention across groups; low certainty).
Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) All outcomes
No significant difference; ~100% prevention10 studies · 1009 participantsLow

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

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent teeth - a systematic review.
2025 All outcomes
30 August-30 October 2023; update 1 December 2024-1 February 202512Moderate / Moderate
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.