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
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
In deciduous teeth at 1 year, pooled bioactive materials (RMGIC and compomer) showed no significant difference from resin composite in secondary caries (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.07-4.10; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and RMGIC (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87-3.25; low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
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
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between resin composite and RMGIC (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.00; low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
In deciduous teeth at 1 year, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and resin composite, with high heterogeneity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02-8.34; I2=83%; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
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).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, amalgam probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.42-4.27; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, the difference in secondary caries between giomer and RMGIC is uncertain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.49-5.61; low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review