First-time bracket failure · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed no difference in first-time bracket failure, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
No differences were observed in the proportions of patients experiencing first-time bracket failures when participants were bonded with either resin adhesive or RM-GIC (p > 0.05).
1 study · 197 participants
GRADE not reported
Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive reduced S. mutans counts, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Experimental group: significant decrease in S. mutans count was observed at the time points of 1 day, 2 months, and 6 months for both maxillary lateral incisor (p = 0.01) and maxillary second premolar teeth (p = 0.001).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
New white spot lesion incidence (and first-time bracket bond failure) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
A single multicenter RCT found resin-modified glass-ionomer cement did not reduce new white spot lesions or bond failures versus conventional composite (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
Two small RCTs gave inconsistent results for TiO2-modified adhesives/composites on enamel demineralization (one favorable on DIAGNOdent, one no difference in mineral content); ungraded.
1 finding from 1 review
White spot lesion rate and volume · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Clearfil Protect Bond showed no WSL-rate difference versus conventional adhesive, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
There was no significant difference among the WSL rates of the Clearfil, Opal Seal, and Transbond XT adhesives (p > 0.05).
1 study · 15 participants
GRADE not reported
Enamel mineral content · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive showed no enamel mineral-content difference, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to sound dentin (in vitro)
Prior SDF without a rinsing step significantly reduces adhesive bond strength to sound dentin (MD 17.52 MPa favoring untreated dentin, 95% CI 5.81 to 29.22; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives/resin composite bonded to dentin (in vitro), sound or caries-affected
Prior SDF application significantly reduces the immediate bond strength of adhesives to dentin overall (MD 7.12 MPa favoring untreated dentin, 95% CI 1.38 to 12.85; ungraded), with very high heterogeneity (I2=98%).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to sound dentin (in vitro)
A rinsing step after SDF eliminates the negative effect on adhesive bond strength to sound dentin (MD 7.11 MPa, 95% CI -0.57 to 14.79, non-significant; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)
Prior SDF followed by a rinsing step significantly increases adhesive bond strength to caries-affected dentin (MD -4.79 MPa favoring SDF, 95% CI -9.19 to -0.40; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)
Only one study assessed SDF without a rinsing step on adhesive bonding to caries-affected dentin (Kucukyilmaz 2016, which reported impaired bond strength); no meta-analysis was possible, so no pooled estimate is available.
1 finding from 1 review
Peri-implant clinical and radiographic parameters (plaque index, probing depth, bone loss, pro-inflammatory profile) · Adult e-cigarette (ENDS) users with dental implants (incl. male implant-supported prosthesis patients)
Among dental implant patients, e-cigarette users show worse peri-implant parameters (more plaque, worse clinical and radiographic outcomes) than non-smokers (narrative synthesis; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Clinical effectiveness · Children with carious primary teeth
No eligible randomized clinical trials of bio-active restorative materials were found.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The reported estimate for discomfort with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)
Glass ionomer cement did not show a statistically significant difference in new white spot lesions versus resin adhesive (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances
There is no clear difference in WSL initiation between glass ionomer cement and resin adhesive for bracket bonding (RR 0.72, not significant); certainty of evidence is very low.
1 finding from 1 review
Pulp exposure rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth
Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Mean pulp-exposure percentage (unweighted study-level mean, 4 studies) MIT 1.2% vs CT 8.1% (Wilcoxon = 0.0, p = 0.068; not statistically significant)
4 studies · 791 participants
GRADE not reported
White spot lesion area · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL area, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
There was no significant difference in the WSL area between the two groups, with the mean WSL area measuring 161.3 mm2 in the Opal Seal group and 1361.2 mm2 in the conventional group.
1 study · 56 participants
GRADE not reported
Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
TiO2-modified composite showed no S. mutans difference, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
Clearfil Protect Bond showed no difference in WSL incidence, with certainty not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
The incidence of WSLs in the Clearfil (CF) group was 8.03%, while in the Transbond (TB) group, it was 9.24% with no significant difference (p = 0.82).
1 study · 35 participants
GRADE not reported