Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

88 questions · 99 findings · 17 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 3%GRADE not reported 76 · 76.8%Very low 3 · 3%Low 10 · 10.1%Moderate 7 · 7.1%High 0 · 0%

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

Composite resin vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

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

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 1.60 [0.85, 3.00]
8 studies · 438 participants
Low

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin composite restoration

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

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 · Compomer
RR 0.41 [0.02, 8.34]
2 studies · 250 participants
GRADE not reported

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration

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

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 · Resin-modified GIC (CIVMR)
RR 1.03 [0.07, 15.81]
1 study · 71 participants
GRADE not reported

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

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

Amalgam (AAG) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

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

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 2.46 [1.42, 4.27]
8 studies · 1135 participants
Moderate

Giomer (GIONOMER) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

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

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 1.66 [0.49, 5.61]
1 study · 38 participants
Low