Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

11 questions · 15 findings · 4 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 20%Very low 3 · 20%Low 8 · 53.3%Moderate 1 · 6.7%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

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

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

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

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF plus potassium iodide (KI) (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ACTIVA bioactive restorative material vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, the effect of ACTIVA versus GIC on secondary caries is very uncertain (RR 22.80, 95% CI 0.89-584.17; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, resin composite showed no statistically significant difference in secondary caries versus GIC (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.95-9.79; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, the effect of compomer versus GIC on secondary caries is very uncertain (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.59-17.33; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

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