What do systematic reviews say?

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  End of anchorage reinforcement / space closure
  MD -1.68 [-2.27, -1.09]
  7 studies · 308 participants
  Moderate

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Glass-ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants showed no statistically significant difference in caries occurrence on sealed permanent teeth at 12 months (no GRADE rating).

• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  12 months · 12 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 1.66 [0.75, 3.68]
  5 studies · 1952 participants
  GRADE not reported
• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  6 months · 6 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 2.04 [0.62, 6.70]
  6 studies · 1944 participants
  GRADE not reported
• The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants… 2013 All outcomes

  24 months · 24 months (permanent teeth)
  RR 1.51 [1.00, 2.28]
  8 studies · 2810 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

Across follow-up periods, there was no statistically significant difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation between GIC and resin composite restorations.

• Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year, 18 months to 2 years, and 3 years · University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings · All types of cavities
  RD 0.01 [-0.01, 0.03]
  9 studies · 2725 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and… 2022 All outcomes

  3 years · University, private practice, primary school, and multicenter settings · All types of cavities
  RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02]
  3 studies · 321 participants
  Low
• 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 0.01 [-0.02, 0.03]
  9 studies · 1386 participants
  Low

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

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

• 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

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 1.62 [0.98, 2.26]
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 48 months · By baseline sector (severity of displacement)
  Tables 11-15 (Hadler-Olsen 2020; Bonetti 2010; Bonetti 2011): partial relationship between severity of medial displacement and successful eruption; e.g. at 18 months 17/75 (23%) sector 2 erupted vs 1/17 (6%) sector 3,…
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · By baseline sector (severity of displacement)
  Table 4 (Naoumova 2015): probability of successful eruption depended on displacement severity; sector 2 (mild) 14/19 (74%) erupted vs sector 4 0/10 erupted; data refer to 59 teeth (mITT).
  1 study · 59 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

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

• A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent teeth. 2023 All outcomes

  12 months · Alexandria Egypt
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 49 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

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

• A systematic review on the effect of silver diamine fluoride for management of dental caries in permanent teeth. 2023 All outcomes

  12 months · Alexandria Egypt
  SDF+KI 2 (8%) vs RMGIC 0 (0%); p=0.63 (NS), 12 months
  1 study · 49 participants
  GRADE not reported

ACTIVA bioactive restorative material vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

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).

• 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)

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).

• 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)

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).

• 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)

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).

• 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)

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).

• 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

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No other adverse events identified
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher decalcification (participant level) compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.85 [1.22, 2.79]
  1 study · 74 participants
  GRADE not reported

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at participant level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 2.30 [1.56, 3.41]
  2 studies · 186 participants
  GRADE not reported

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher first time failure at tooth level compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 2.92 [1.80, 4.72]
  2 studies · 190 participants
  GRADE not reported