Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 10 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 3 · 30%Low 6 · 60%Moderate 1 · 10%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

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

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

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 22.80 [0.89, 584.17]
1 study · 153 participants
Very low

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

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 3.05 [0.95, 9.79]
6 studies · 479 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 2.00 [1.10, 3.64]
13 studies · 728 participants
Very low

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

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 3.20 [0.59, 17.33]
2 studies · 79 participants
Very 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

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