Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 2 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 100%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Amalgam (AAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, amalgam had a higher risk of secondary caries than GIC (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.04-3.09; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes
2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
RR 1.79 [1.04, 3.09]
7 studies · 390 participants
Low

Fluoride-containing amalgam (FAAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between fluoride-containing amalgam and GIC (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45-2.00; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes
2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
RR 0.95 [0.45, 2.00]
6 studies · 309 participants
Low