Primary study · included by 1 review
Clinical Evaluation of Bioactive Injectable Resin Composite vs Conventional Nanohybrid Composite in Posterior Restorations: An 18-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Elderiny et al. [19] · Elderiny Hazem M, Khallaf Yomna S, Akah Mai M, et al. · The journal of contemporary dental practice · 2024
Included by
| 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 |
1 including review in total.