Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42677137
Bioactive Glass-Based Materials Versus Conventional Materials for Primary Tooth Restorations: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.
Zailai Abdulaziz, Noor Abdullah, Alkhawari Dalal, et al. · Cureus · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.7759/cureus.113767
Findings
22 findings
| Population | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Beltagy 2018 | RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Shagale 2020 | RR 1.0 [0.89, 1.12] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Deepika 2022 | RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.1] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Bhavana 2024 | RR 0.99 [0.9, 1.08] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Malik 2025 | RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children with restored primary teeth | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials | Clinical success/retention 3–36 months · Leave-one-out: omitting Sengul 2015 | RR .99 [.89, 1.10] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Shihabi 2026 | RR 0.99 [0.91, 1.08] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Passaro 2022 | RR 1.0 [0.91, 1.11] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Lardani 2022 | RR 1.0 [0.88, 1.12] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Akman 2020 | RR 1.01 [0.95, 1.06] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Olegario 2019 | RR 1.01 [0.93, 1.09] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Meta-regression on follow-up duration (months) | Meta-regression slope (log RR per month) -0.0054 [-0.015, 0.004] GRADE not reported 16 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations (class II primary molars) | Bioactive composite (ACTIVA BioACTIVE) | Compomer (Dyract eXtra) | Operator placement time (minutes) Placement · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Overall | MD -2.37 [-2.58, -2.16] -2.37 min Low Downgraded: imprecision 1 study · 86 participants |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting da Cunha 2022 | RR 1.01 [0.91, 1.11] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children with restored primary teeth | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials | Clinical success/retention 3–36 months | RR 1.00 [0.96, 1.04] -3 [-41, 38] per 1000 High 16 studies · 1293 participants |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Inthihas 2019 | RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.11] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Kataria 2023 | RR 0.99 [0.89, 1.1] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Banon 2024 | RR 1.0 [0.89, 1.12] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children aged 3-12 years with carious primary teeth requiring direct restorations | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials (RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composite) | Clinical success/retention of restorations 3 to 36 months · Clinical (pediatric dental) · Leave-one-out sensitivity: omitting Mansour 2024 | RR 1.0 [0.9, 1.1] GRADE not reported 15 studies |
| Children with restored primary teeth | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Glass-ionomer-based materials (including compomer) | Clinical success/retention 3–36 months · Glass-ionomer-based comparator | RR 1.01 [0.94, 1.08] GRADE not reported 10 studies · 839 participants |
| Children with restored primary teeth | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Resin-based composite | Clinical success/retention 3–36 months · Resin-based composite comparator | RR 0.99 [0.87, 1.14] GRADE not reported 6 studies · 454 participants |
| Extracted primary teeth | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials | Conventional restorative materials | In vitro shear bond strength (MPa) | MD 2.82 [-9.69, 15.34] Very low Downgraded: inconsistency, indirectness 2 studies · 32 participants |
Included primary studies 25
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 2020 | 3 other reviews | not stated | 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 DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19 | 2020 | 2 other reviews | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Sengul 2015 Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions DOI:10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.315 | 2015 | 2 other reviews | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Sengul 2015 Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. PMID:26161601 | 2015 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet |
| da Cunha 2022 New Dual-cure Resin-based Material in Occlusal and Occluso-proximal Restorations of Primary Teeth: Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:35528486 | 2022 | 1 other review | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Kataria 2023 Clinical and Radiographic Evaluation of Different Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: A Comparative Randomized Clinical… PMID:38344373 | 2023 | 1 other review | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Olegario 2019 Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1007/s00784-018-2593-9 | 2018 | 1 other review | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Banon 2024 Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities… DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04132-w | 2024 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations; Operator placement time (minutes) | not extracted yet |
| Banon 2024 Two-year clinical and radiographic evaluation of ACTIVA BioACTIVE versus Compomer (Dyract® eXtra) in the restoration of class-2 cavities… PMID:38600533 | 2024 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Beltagy 2018 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations; Clinical success/retention | not extracted yet |
| Bhatia 2022 Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond… DOI:10.22514/jocpd.2022.022 | 2022 | this review only | Clinical success/retention | not extracted yet |
| Bhatia 2022 Comparative evaluation of a bioactive restorative material with resin modified glass ionomer for calcium-ion release and shear bond… PMID:36624901 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Bhavana 2024 A Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluating the Clinical Performance of Bioactive Restorative Material and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer… PMID:39650299 | 2024 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Deepika 2022 Clinical evaluation of bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer and giomer in restoring primary molars DOI:10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_139_22 | 2022 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Deepika 2022 Clinical evaluation of bioactive resin-modified glass ionomer and giomer in restoring primary molars: A randomized, parallel-group, and… PMID:36260470 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Inthihas 2019 Clinical and Radiographic Success of Three Adhesive Restorative Materials in Primary Molar Proximal Lesions: A Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:32308324 | 2019 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Lardani 2022 One-Year Clinical Performance of Activa™ Bioactive-Restorative Composite in Primary Molars. PMID:35327805 | 2022 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Malik 2025 Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary… PMID:40989992 | 2025 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Mansour 2024 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Olegário 2019 Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial. PMID:30171345 | 2019 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Passaro 2022 Giomer composite compared to glass ionomer in occlusoproximal ART restorations of primary molars: 24‐month RCT DOI:10.1111/adj.12894 | 2022 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Pássaro 2022 Giomer composite compared to glass ionomer in occlusoproximal ART restorations of primary molars: 24-month RCT. PMID:34904247 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Shagale 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Shihabi 2026 The Clinical Performance of Activa Bioactive Composite Compared to Composite in Restoring Class II Cavities in Primary Teeth: 1 Year of… DOI:10.1055/s-0045-1811224 | 2025 | this review only | Clinical success/retention of restorations | not extracted yet |
| Shihabi 2026 The Clinical Performance of Activa Bioactive Composite Compared to Composite in Restoring Class II Cavities in Primary Teeth: 1 Year of… PMID:40858156 | 2026 | this review only | not stated | 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 | Children aged 3-12 years with cavitated carious lesions in primary teeth requiring direct restoration | Children with carious primary teeth (16 RCTs, n=1293); extracted primary molars (1 in vitro study) |
| Intervention | Bioactive glass-based restorative materials (bioactive composites, bioactive glass ionomers, giomers, biosilicate cements) | ACTIVA BioACTIVE, Equia Forte, giomers, Cention N, glass carbomer, nano-ionomer (bioactive materials) |
| Comparison | Conventional composite resins, amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer | RMGIC, HVGIC, compomer, resin composites |
| Outcomes | Clinical restoration success and retention (primary); marginal integrity, secondary caries, microleakage, operator placement time | Clinical success/retention (n=16 RCTs); operator placement time (n=1); in vitro shear bond strength (n=2) |
| Study designs | RCTs (parallel or split-mouth) and prospective controlled clinical trials, 2010 to May 2026 | 16 RCTs and 1 in vitro study |
| Timing | Minimum 6 months follow-up | 3 to 36 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
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 | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 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 | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: No · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: No · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | 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 | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Low | Critically Low | no |