Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

4 questions · 7 findings · 3 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 14.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 5 · 71.4%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between RMGIC and GIC (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.45-7.28; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes
1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
RR 1.82 [0.45, 7.28]
2 studies · 126 participants
Low
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 1.33 [0.70, 2.54]
5 studies · 141 participants
Low

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Secondary caries · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
One study reported data on secondary caries for this comparison (Cruz 2016). The odds of secondary caries at six months were greater with ART than with conventional treatment.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, GIC probably reduces secondary caries versus resin composite (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.91; moderate certainty).

2 findings 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 0.50 [0.28, 0.91]
14 studies · 1571 participants
Moderate
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes
1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
RR 0.33 [0.10, 1.05]
5 studies · 380 participants
Low

Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious cervical lesions)

Ion-releasing GIC restorations may have little or no difference in secondary caries at 1 year (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and… 2022 All outcomes
1 year · University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings · All types of cavities
RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]
12 studies · 1677 participants
Low
Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and… 2022 All outcomes
18 months to 2 years · University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings · All types of cavities
RD -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]
8 studies · 1087 participants
Low