Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41585617
Clinical Efficacy of Bioactive and Smart Restorative Materials in Preventing Secondary Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Zailai Abdulaziz, Mubarki Ola, Alobaidan Ali N, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.102221
Findings
Population Patients with permanent teeth requiring direct Class I, II, III or V restorations
57 findings
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Kamal et al. [56] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Frencken et al. [41] | RR 0.54 [0.45, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: total of the material-class subgroup model (Figure 5) | RR 0.55 [0.44, 0.69] GRADE not reported 40 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Jassal et al. [27] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: excluding studies at high risk of bias (n=7) | RR 0.57 [0.45, 0.72] GRADE not reported 33 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Ahmed et al. [17] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Gurgan et al. [28] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Franco et al. [42] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting van Dijken [48] | RR 0.55 [0.47, 0.66] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Zanata et al. [44] | RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.64] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Miletic et al. [37] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting van Dijken et al. [34] | RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.63] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Toz-Akalin et al. [24] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Santiago et al. [39] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Haveman et al. [46] | RR 0.59 [0.51, 0.68] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Cavity class I/II | RR 0.55 [0.44, 0.69] GRADE not reported 23 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Ozgünaltay et al. [47] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Menezes-Silva et al. [26] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Hassanein et al. [20] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting van Dijken [31] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.66] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Pollington et al. [40] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Sonbul [22] | RR 0.56 [0.47, 0.66] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Burgess et al. [43] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Oz et al. [21] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Donly et al. [29] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Powell et al. [53] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Long-term follow-up (>2 years) · Follow-up duration | RR 0.5 [0.39, 0.65] GRADE not reported 22 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Follow-up 9 months to 10 years · Overall | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias 40 studies · 5506 participants |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Tian et al. [23] | RR 0.53 [0.45, 0.63] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Kharma et al. [33] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting McComb et al. [30] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Al-Wakeel et al. [18] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Elderiny et al. [19] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Mjör et al. [51] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Svanberg et al. [52] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Molina et al. [25] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Restoration failure Overall | RR 0.92 GRADE not reported Studies not reported |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Gallo et al. [32] | RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.64] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Skartveit et al. [49] | RR 0.53 [0.41, 0.68] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Koc Vural et al. [36] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Mandari et al. [45] | RR 0.57 [0.49, 0.67] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Fagundes et al. [38] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting De Moor et al. [35] | RR 0.56 [0.47, 0.66] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Ebrahim et al. [55] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Cavity class III/V | RR 0.51 [0.33, 0.78] GRADE not reported 17 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Raghip et al. [54] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Trial sequential analysis, fixed-effect Mantel-Haenszel, sequentially adjusted CI | RR 0.52 [0.37, 0.82] GRADE not reported 40 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Sensitivity: leave-one-out, omitting Valenzuela et al. [50] | RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65] GRADE not reported 39 studies |
| Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Short-term follow-up (<=2 years) · Follow-up duration | RR 0.67 [0.48, 0.94] GRADE not reported 18 studies |
| Glass ionomer cement (GIC) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.36 [0.19, 0.69] GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.7 [0.25, 1.98] GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Bioactive resin composite | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.71 [0.29, 1.74] GRADE not reported 8 studies |
| Giomer | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 1.09 [0.38, 3.13] GRADE not reported 3 studies |
| Glass hybrid | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.6 [0.17, 2.03] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Compomer | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.55 [0.19, 1.6] GRADE not reported 4 studies |
| Fluoride-amalgam | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 0.57 [0.42, 0.79] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
| Cermet | Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) | Incidence of secondary caries Material class | RR 1.02 [0.07, 15.79] GRADE not reported 2 studies |
Included primary studies 34
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Moor et al. [35] Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients. PMID:19997859 | 2011 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Gallo et al. [32] Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials. PMID:15986945 | 2005 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Gurgan et al. [28] A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. PMID:31351909 | 2020 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Jassal et al. [27] Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in… PMID:29782222 | 2018 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Koc Vural et al. [36] Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions:… PMID:32902766 | 2021 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Miletic et al. [37] Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hybrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter… PMID:32435764 | 2020 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Pollington et al. [40] A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up. PMID:18435377 | 2008 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken et al. [34] A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed… PMID:30527586 | 2019 | 2 other reviews | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Ahmed et al. [17] 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials. PMID:38418863 | 2024 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Burgess et al. [43] Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall. PMID:15301207 | 2004 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Donly et al. [29] Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. PMID:10570589 | 1999 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Fagundes et al. [38] Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. PMID:24809539 | 2014 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Franco et al. [42] 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. PMID:16924979 | 2006 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Frencken et al. [41] Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in… PMID:17518967 | 2007 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Haveman et al. [46] Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients: a clinical comparison. PMID:12636121 | 2003 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Kharma et al. [33] Clinical Evaluation of Microhybrid Composite and Glass lonomer Restorative Material in Permanent Teeth. PMID:29422475 | 2018 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Mandari et al. [45] Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. PMID:12771499 | 2003 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| McComb et al. [30] A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries… PMID:12216559 | 2002 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Menezes-Silva et al. [26] A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement… PMID:33656064 | 2021 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Mjör et al. [51] Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite… PMID:8258583 | 1993 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Molina et al. [25] Randomized Controlled Trial of Class II ART High-viscosity Glass-ionomer Cement and Conventional Resin-composite restorations in Permanent… PMID:33491400 | 2020 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Oz et al. [21] Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial. PMID:37377309 | 2023 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Ozgünaltay et al. [47] Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. PMID:12453256 | 2002 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Powell et al. [53] Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations. PMID:1299249 | 1992 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Svanberg et al. [52] Class II amalgam restorations, glass-ionomer tunnel restorations, and caries development on adjacent tooth surfaces: a 3-year clinical… PMID:1423449 | 1992 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken [31] 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations. PMID:9545903 | 1996 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| van Dijken [48] Durability of new restorative materials in Class III cavities. PMID:11317385 | 2001 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Zanata et al. [44] Clinical evaluation of three restorative materials applied in a minimal intervention caries treatment approach. PMID:14682645 | 2003 | 1 other review | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Al-Wakeel et al. [18] Microhardness and elemental analysis of ion-releasing restoration/ dentin interface following enzymatic chemomechanical caries excavation. PMID:38764034 | 2024 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Elderiny et al. [19] Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Resin Composite vs Conventional Nanohybrid Composite in Posterior Restorations: An 18-Month… PMID:39653674 | 2024 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Raghip et al. [54] Two-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior bulk-fill resin composite with ionic releasing restorative… PMID:40518039 | 2025 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Sonbul [22] Influence of Bioactive Restorative Materials on Secondary Caries Prevention: A Clinical and In Vitro Study. PMID:40655776 | 2025 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Tian et al. [23] Clinical evaluation of Giomer and self-etch adhesive compared with nanofilled resin composite and etch-and-rinse adhesive - Results at 8… PMID:38806383 | 2024 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | not extracted yet |
| Toz-Akalin et al. [24] Three-year clinical performance of direct restorations using low-shrinkage Giomer vs. nano-hybrid resin composite. PMID:39917677 | 2024 | this review only | Incidence of secondary caries | 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). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Humans with permanent dentition requiring direct Class I, II or V restorations | Patients with permanent teeth receiving direct Class I, II, III or V restorations (5,506 restorations) |
| Intervention | Bioactive or smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, alkasite, bioactive resin composite) | GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin composite, glass hybrid, compomer, fluoride-amalgam, cermet, alkasite (n=40 RCTs) |
| Comparison | Conventional passive materials (non-bioactive resin composite or dental amalgam) | Resin composite or amalgam (n=40 RCTs) |
| Outcomes | Primary: incidence of secondary caries (clinical or radiographic); secondary: restoration survival or failure, marginal integrity | Secondary caries incidence (n=40); restoration failure (RR 0.92 reported in discussion) |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled trials | Randomized controlled trials (n=40; split-mouth and parallel) |
| Timing | Minimum follow-up 12 months | Follow-up 9 months to 10 years (short-term <=2 years n=18; long-term >2 years n=22) |