Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM37322456
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Pinto Noeleni Souza, Jorge Gabriela Rebouças, Vasconcelos Jader, et al. · BMC oral health · 2023 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
18
current version
GRADE rated
15
No studies
0
Included studies
63
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 16.7%Very low 3 · 16.7%Low 9 · 50%Moderate 3 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Participants with an indication for dental restoration | 62 clinical trials in qualitative synthesis, 39 in quantitative synthesis; permanent and deciduous (primary) teeth |
| Intervention | Bioactive restorative materials containing calcium, phosphate or fluoride (Ca, PO4, F) in their composition | Bioactive: glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified GIC (RMGIC), compomer, giomer (GIONOMER), ACTIVA, fluoride-containing amalgam (FAAG) |
| Comparison | Conventional restorative materials without calcium, phosphate or fluoride in their formulation | Conventional: resin composite (RC) and amalgam (AAG) |
| Outcomes | Secondary caries | Secondary caries (occurrence), expressed as risk ratios |
| Study designs | Clinical trials (case reports, reviews, case series, pilot studies, editorials and observational/descriptive studies excluded) | 62 clinical trials: RCTs, controlled, split-mouth, parallel, non-randomized/non-controlled and retrospective clinical trials (some designs unspecified) |
| Timing | Follow-up grouped as 1 year or 2 or more years | 1 year and 2 or more years of follow-up |
Search date: Not specified (search date reported only in Supplementary Table S1). Databases: Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS; grey literature via Google Scholar, CAPES theses/dissertations, ClinicalTrials and SIGLE; plus manual cross-reference search
Questions and results
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Resin composite (RC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 0.50 [0.28, 0.91] | 14 studies · 1571 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up Over 1 year in permanent teeth, GIC may lower secondary caries versus resin composite, but the estimate is imprecise and includes no effect (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.10-1.05; low certainty). Source: Table 3 (Summary of findings); Figure 7a · same question in other reviews | RR 0.33 [0.10, 1.05] | 5 studies · 380 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up 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). Source: Table 3 (Summary of findings); Figure 7a · same question in other reviews | RR 1.82 [0.45, 7.28] | 2 studies · 126 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between RMGIC and GIC (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.70-2.54; low certainty). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.33 [0.70, 2.54] | 5 studies · 141 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Resin composite (RC) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up 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). Source: Table 3 (Summary of findings); Figure 7a · same question in other reviews | RR 3.05 [0.95, 9.79] | 6 studies · 479 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, resin composite showed a higher risk of secondary caries than GIC (RR 2.00, 95% CI 1.10-3.64; very low certainty). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 2.00 [1.10, 3.64] | 13 studies · 728 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
ACTIVA bioactive restorative material vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up 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). Source: Table 3 (Summary of findings); Figure 7a · same question in other reviews | RR 22.80 [0.89, 584.17] | 1 study · 153 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision |
Fluoride-containing amalgam (FAAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 0.95 [0.45, 2.00] | 6 studies · 309 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Amalgam (AAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.79 [1.04, 3.09] | 7 studies · 390 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Compomer vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 4 (Summary of findings); Figure 7b · same question in other reviews | RR 3.20 [0.59, 17.33] | 2 studies · 79 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Resin composite (RC) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 5 (Summary of findings); Figure 9b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.60 [0.85, 3.00] | 8 studies · 438 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Compomer vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and RMGIC (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87-3.25; low certainty). Source: Table 5 (Summary of findings); Figure 9b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.68 [0.87, 3.25] | 5 studies · 207 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Giomer (GIONOMER) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 5 (Summary of findings); Figure 9b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.66 [0.49, 5.61] | 1 study · 38 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty). Source: Table 5 (Summary of findings); Figure 9b · same question in other reviews | RR 1.92 [1.03, 3.56] | 7 studies · 1193 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Amalgam (AAG) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 2 or more years of follow-up 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). Source: Table 5 (Summary of findings); Figure 9b · same question in other reviews | RR 2.46 [1.42, 4.27] | 8 studies · 1135 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) vs Resin composite (RC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up · Resin-modified GIC (CIVMR) 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). Source: Figure 8 (paired meta-analysis, deciduous teeth 1 year, subgroup 2.3.1 CIVMR); Results 'Analysis in deciduous teeth' · same question in other reviews | RR 1.03 [0.07, 15.81] | 1 study · 71 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs Resin composite (RC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up · Compomer 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). Source: Figure 8 (paired meta-analysis, deciduous teeth 1 year, subgroup 2.3.2 Compomer); Results 'Analysis in deciduous teeth' · same question in other reviews | RR 0.41 [0.02, 8.34] | 2 studies · 250 participants | Ungraded |
Bioactive restorative materials (RMGIC and compomer combined) vs Resin composite (RC)
Population: Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries (occurrence) 1 year of follow-up · Overall (all bioactive vs resin composite) In deciduous teeth at 1 year, pooled bioactive materials (RMGIC and compomer) showed no significant difference from resin composite in secondary caries (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.07-4.10; ungraded). Source: Figure 8 (paired meta-analysis, deciduous teeth 1 year, Total); Results 'Analysis in deciduous teeth' · same question in other reviews | RR 0.54 [0.07, 4.10] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | No | no |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Partial Yes | no |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: No | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | No | Yes | no |
| Overall | Low | Low | yes |
Included primary studies 63
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ersin 2006 A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach:… PMID:17082278 | 3 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Akman 2020 Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. PMID:32246655 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Balkaya 2020 A Two-year Clinical Comparison of Three Different Restorative Materials in Class II Cavities. PMID:31738696 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| De Moor 2011 Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients. PMID:19997859 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gallo 2005 Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials. PMID:15986945 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gurgan 2020 A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. PMID:31351909 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hilgert 2014 Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? PMID:25132283 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Jassal 2018 Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in… PMID:29782222 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Koc Vural 2020 Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions:… PMID:32902766 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Menezes-Silva 2019 Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months. PMID:30612246 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Miletic 2020 Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hybrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter… PMID:32435764 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oz 2020 One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with… PMID:33111883 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pascon 2006 Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. PMID:16242232 | 1 other review | Secondary caries (occurrence) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Pollington 2008 A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up. PMID:18435377 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Santiago 2010 Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. PMID:21203706 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Sengul 2015 Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. PMID:26161601 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken 2019 A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed… PMID:30527586 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Adeleke 2012 Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. PMID:25453001 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alves dos Santos 2010 Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results. PMID:20188783 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Attin 1998 Clinical evaluation of a hybrid composite and a polyacid-modified composite resin in Class-II restorations in deciduous molars. PMID:9927911 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Attin 2000 Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year… PMID:11203828 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Attin 2001 Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. PMID:11572292 | this review only | Secondary caries (occurrence) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Balkaya 2019 A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a… PMID:31596369 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Burgess 2004 Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall. PMID:15301207 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Daou 2008 Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. PMID:18491670 | this review only | Secondary caries (occurrence) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| de Amorim 2014 Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. PMID:23455576 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Donly 1999 Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. PMID:10570589 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dutta 2001 Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation. PMID:11817797 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| El-Housseiny 2019 A randomized controlled clinical trial of glass carbomer restorations in Class II cavities in primary molars: 12-month results. PMID:31134226 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fagundes 2014 Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. PMID:24809539 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Franco 2006 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. PMID:16924979 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Frencken 2007 Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in… PMID:17518967 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gurgan 2015 Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. PMID:25299703 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gurgan 2017 Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. PMID:28000039 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Haveman 2003 Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: a clinical comparison. PMID:12636121 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kaurich 1991 A clinical comparison of a glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin in restoring root caries: two-year results. PMID:1839833 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kharma 2018 Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass lonomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth. PMID:29422475 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kotsanos 2004 Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. a… PMID:15471520 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Koubi 2006 One-year clinical evaluation of two resin composites, two polymerization methods, and a resin-modified glass ionomer in non-carious… PMID:17091139 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kupietzky 2019 Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary… PMID:30820833 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Levy 1990 A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries. PMID:11100226 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Mandari 2003 Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. PMID:12771499 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| McComb 2002 A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries… PMID:12216559 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Medeiros 2015 Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions DOI:10.1590/1677-3225v14n4a07 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Menezes-Silva 2021 A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement… PMID:33656064 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Mjor 1993 Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite… PMID:8258583 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Molina 2020 Randomized Controlled Trial of Class II ART High-viscosity Glass-ionomer Cement and Conventional Resin-composite restorations in Permanent… PMID:33491400 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Namgung 2013 A retrospective clinical study of cervical restorations: longevity and failure-prognostic variables. PMID:23215544 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ostlund 1992 Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars--a three year clinical evaluation. PMID:1496459 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ozgunaltay 2002 Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. PMID:12453256 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Powell 1992 Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations. PMID:1299249 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Qvist 1997 Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. PMID:9207772 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Qvist 2004 Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. PMID:15124781 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Silva 2017 DOI:10.14393/ufu.di.2017.226 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Skartveit 1994 Effect of fluoride in amalgam on secondary caries incidence. PMID:8205778 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Svanberg 1992 Class II amalgam restorations, glass-ionomer tunnel restorations, and caries development on adjacent tooth surfaces: a 3-year clinical… PMID:1423449 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Tyas 1991 Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. PMID:1831607 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Valenzuela 1994 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Valenzuela 1999 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken 1996 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations. PMID:9545903 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken 2003 Durability of new restorative materials in Class III cavities. PMID:11317385 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Welbury 1991 The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. PMID:2018693 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Zanata 2003 Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. PMID:14682645 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).