Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2 questions · 3 findings · 2 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 1 · 33.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 66.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

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