Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration: Secondary caries
- Population
- Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
- Intervention
- Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement
- Comparison
- Resin composite restoration
- Outcome
- Secondary caries
In deciduous teeth at 1 year, a single small trial found no difference in secondary caries between RMGIC and resin composite (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07-15.81; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) vs Resin composite (RC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 1 year of follow-up, Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries, Resin-modified GIC (CIVMR) In deciduous teeth at 1 year, a single small trial found no difference in secondary caries between RMGIC and resin composite (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07-15.81; ungraded). Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) All outcomes | RR 1.03 [0.07, 15.81] | 1 study · 71 participants | GRADE not reported |
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.
- Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 1 review
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. · 2008 · included by 1 of these 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.