Pulp necrosis · Vital teeth
The pooled incidence with GIC permanent cement was 5.33%.
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
Development of carious lesions on sealed occlusal pits and fissures · Children with fully erupted permanent first molar teeth (mean age about 6 to 8 years)
At 48 months, no statistically significant difference was found between HVGIC and resin-based sealants (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.21); evidence ungraded and at high risk of bias.
4 findings from 1 review
RR 0.62 [0.31, 1.21]
2 studies · 1007 evaluated sealed teeth participants
GRADE not reported
RR 0.29 [0.09, 0.95]
2 studies · 205 evaluated sealed teeth participants
GRADE not reported
RR 0.90 [0.49, 1.67]
3 studies · 600 evaluated sealed teeth participants
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
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
Caries prevention (preventive fraction, SDF vs GIC+5% fluoride varnish) · intellectually disabled individuals with caries in permanent posterior teeth
SDF had a 45% preventative fraction versus glass ionomer cement plus fluoride varnish; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating was reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Caries occurrence on sealed teeth · Sealed permanent teeth
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).
3 findings from 1 review
RR 1.66 [0.75, 3.68]
5 studies · 1952 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 2.04 [0.62, 6.70]
6 studies · 1944 participants
GRADE not reported
RR 1.51 [1.00, 2.28]
8 studies · 2810 participants
GRADE not reported
Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious cervical lesions)
Across follow-up periods, there was no statistically significant difference in unacceptable marginal adaptation between GIC and resin composite restorations.
3 findings from 1 review
Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and… 2022 All outcomes1 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 outcomes3 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 outcomes1 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
Secondary caries · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious cervical lesions)
Ion-releasing GIC restorations may have little or no difference in secondary caries at 1 year (low certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars
No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars
No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.
1 finding from 1 review
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; 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; 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; 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; 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