Pulp necrosis · Vital teeth
The pooled incidence with GIC permanent cement was 5.33%.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty).
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
Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to higher restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to lower pain (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 0.41 [0.35, 0.47]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Participant experience · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Costs (direct and indirect) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain: Not measured.
0 studies
No studies found
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding 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
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Participant experience (co-operation during procedure) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
1 finding from 1 review
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
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).
1 finding from 1 review