Question · asked by 1 review
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration: Secondary caries
- 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
- Secondary caries
Pooled across follow-up periods, ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations show no significant difference in secondary caries (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00; not separately GRADE-rated).
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 restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Secondary caries (caries around restorations), all cavity types · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · Overall (1 year, 18 months-2 years, and 3 years pooled), Permanent dentition; university (majority), school, and private-practice settings across multiple countries (Turkey, Brazil, Sweden, India, Vietnam, Belgium, Germany, etc.) Pooled across follow-up periods, ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations show no significant difference in secondary caries (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.00; not separately GRADE-rated). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.00] | 12 studies · 3085 participants | GRADE not reported |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Secondary caries (caries around restorations), all cavity types · 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 secondary caries between ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] | 8 studies · 1087 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Secondary caries · 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 secondary caries at 1 year (low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] | 12 studies · 1677 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Secondary caries (caries around restorations), all cavity types · 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 secondary caries events 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 restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Secondary caries (caries around restorations), all cavity types · 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, ion-releasing (GIC) and resin composite restorations show no significant difference in secondary caries (RD -0.00, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01; low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] | 12 studies · 1677 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Secondary caries · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 18 months to 2 years, University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings, All types of cavities Ion-releasing GIC restorations may have little or no difference in secondary caries at 18 months to 2 years (low certainty). Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) All outcomes | RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01] | 8 studies · 1087 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.