Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Clinical performance of an alkasite-based bioactive restorative in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.

Oz et al. [21] · Oz Fatma Dilsad, Meral Ece, Gurgan Sevil · Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2023

Included by

Clinical Efficacy of Bioactive and Smart Restorative Materials in Preventing Secondary Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Oz et al. [21] · Table 1; Figure 4; reference 21

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.54 [0.45, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.59 [0.51, 0.68]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.44, 0.69]	40 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.63]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.57 [0.45, 0.72]	33 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.66]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) · Follow-up 9 months to 10 years	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	40 studies · 5506 participants	Moderate
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) · Long-term follow-up (>2 years)	RR 0.5 [0.39, 0.65]	22 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.56 [0.47, 0.66]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.44, 0.69]	23 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.53 [0.45, 0.63]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.47, 0.66]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.64]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.53 [0.41, 0.68]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.54 [0.46, 0.64]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.57 [0.49, 0.67]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.56 [0.47, 0.66]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.51 [0.33, 0.78]	17 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.52 [0.37, 0.82]	40 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam)	RR 0.55 [0.46, 0.65]	39 studies	GRADE not reported
Incidence of secondary caries Bioactive/smart restorative materials (GIC, RMGIC, giomer, bioactive resin, alkasite, other) vs Conventional restorative materials (resin composite, amalgam) · Short-term follow-up (<=2 years)	RR 0.67 [0.48, 0.94]	18 studies	GRADE not reported

Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Alkasite Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Oz 2023 · Ref 32; Table 2

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

2 including reviews in total.