Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Caries | Research

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Authors: Noeleni Souza Pinto, Gabriela Rebouças Jorge, Jader Vasconcelos, Livia Fernandes Probst, Alessandro Diogo De-Carli, Andrea Freire

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2023

Abstract

Background

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of bioactive and conventional restorative materials in controlling secondary caries (SC) and to provide a classification of these materials according to their effectiveness.

Methods

A search was performed in Pubmed, Web of Science, Embase, BBO, Lilacs, Cochrane Library, Scopus, IBECS and gray literature. Clinical trials were included, with no language or publication date limitations. Paired and network meta-analyses were performed with random-effects models, comparing treatments of interest and classifying them according to effectiveness in the permanent and deciduous dentition and at 1-year or 2/more years of follow-up. The risk of bias and certainty of evidence were evaluated.

Results

Sixty-two studies were included in the qualitative syntheses and 39 in the quantitative ones. In permanent teeth, resin composite (RC) (RR = 2.00; 95%CI = 1.10, 3.64) and amalgam (AAG) (RR = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09) showed a higher risk of SC than Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC). In the deciduous teeth, however, a higher risk of SC was observed with RC than with AAG (RR = 2.46; 95%CI = 1.42, 4.27) and in GIC when compared to Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC = 1.79; 95%CI = 1.04, 3.09). Most randomized clinical trials studies showed low or moderate risk of bias.

Conclusion

There is a difference between bioactive restorative materials for SC control, with GIC being more effective in the permanent teeth and the RMGIC in the deciduous teeth. Bioactive restorative materials can be adjuvants in the control of SC in patients at high risk for caries.

Available only for authorised users

Simón-Soro A, Mira A. Solving the etiology of dental caries. Microbiol. 2015;23(2):76–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tim.2014.10.010.CrossRef

Díaz-Garrido N, Lozano C, Giacaman RA. Frequency of sucrose exposure on the cariogenicity of a biofilm-caries model. Eur J Dent. 2016;10(3):345–50. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.184163.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Sheiham A, James WPT. Diet and Dental Caries: The Pivotal Role of Free Sugars Reemphasized. J Dent Res. 2015;94(10):1341–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515590377.CrossRefPubMed

Balhaddad AA, Kansara AA, Hidan DH, Weir MD, Xu HHK, Melo MAS. Toward dental caries: Exploring nanoparticle-based platforms and calcium phosphate compounds for dental restorative materials. Bioact Mater. 2018;4(1):43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bioactmat.2018.12.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Nedeljkovic I, Teughels W, De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL. Is secondary caries with composites a material-based problem? Dent Mater. 2015;31(11):247–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001.CrossRef

Li F, Weir MD, Fouad AF, Xu HH. Effect of salivary pellicle on antibacterial activity of novel antibacterial dental adhesives using a dental plaque microcosm biofilm model. Dent Mater. 2014;30(2):182–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.11.004.CrossRefPubMed

Pereira-Cenci T, Cenci MS, Fedorowicz Z, Azevedo M. Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;8(3):CD007819. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007819.pub3.CrossRef

Roumanas ED. The frequency of replacement of dental restorations may vary based on a number of variables, including type of material, size of the restoration, and caries risk of the patient. J Evid based Dent Pract. 2010;10(1):23–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebdp.2009.11.009.CrossRefPubMed

Van Nieuwenhuysen JP, D’Hoore W, Carvalho J, Qvist V. Long-term evaluation of extensive restorations in permanent teeth. J Dent. 2003;31(6):395–405. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(03)00084-8.CrossRefPubMed

10.

McCabe JF, Yan Z, Al Naimi OT, Mahmoud G, Rolland SL. Smart materials in dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2011;56(8):3–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01291.x.CrossRefPubMed

11.

van Dijken JW. Three-year performance of a calcium, fluoride, and hydroxyl-ions-releasing resin composite. Acta Odontol Scand. 2002;60(3):155–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/000163502753740179.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Darvell BW, Smith AJ. Inert to bioactive - A multidimensional spectrum. Dent Mater. 2022;38(1):2–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.11.002.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Silva KG, Pedrini D, Delbem AC, Ferreira L, Cannon M. In situ evaluation of the remineralizing capacity of pit and fissure sealants containing amorphous calcium phosphate and/or fluoride. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68(1):11–8. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016350903260264.CrossRefPubMed

14.

El-Housseiny AA, Alamoudi NM, Nouri S, Felemban O. A randomized controlled clinical trial of glass carbomer restorations in Class II cavities in primary molars: 12-month results. Quintessence Int. 2019;50(7):522–32. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a42573.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Zhang K, Zhang N, Weir MD, Reynolds MA, Bai Y, Xu HHK. Bioactive dental composites and bonding agents having remineralizing and antibacterial characteristics. Dent Clin North Am. 2017;61(4):669–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2017.05.002.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Rusnac ME, Gasparik C, Irimie AI, Grecu AG, Mesaroş AŞ, Dudea D. Giomers in dentistry – at the boundary between dental composites and glass- ionomers. Med Pharm Rep. 2019;92(2):123–8. https://doi.org/10.15386/mpr-1169.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Cury JA, de Oliveira BH, dos Santos APP, Tenuta LMA. Are fluoride releasing dental materials clinically effective on caries control? Dent Mater. 2016;32(3):323–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.12.002.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Vallittu PK, Boccaccini AR, Hupa L, Watts DC. Bioactive dental materials - Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean? Dent Mater. 2018;34(5):693–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.001.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Vasconcelos SM, Melo MA, Wenceslau JP, Zanin IC, Beltrao HC, Fernandes CA, Almeida PC, Rodrigues LK. In situ assessment of effects of the bromide- and fluoride-incorporating adhesive systems on biofilm and secondary caries. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014;15(2):142–8. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1504.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Wiegand A, Buchalla W, Attin T. Review on fluoride-releasing restorative materials–fluoride release and uptake characteristics, antibacterial activity and influence on caries formation. Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):343–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.022.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Metelli S, Chaimani A. NMAstudio: a fully interactive web-application for producing and visualising network meta-analyses. SRSM Annual Meeting 2021, Bern, Switzerland. https://www.nmastudioapp.com/doc.

25.

Sengul F, Gurbuz T. Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;39:315–21. https://doi.org/10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.315.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134–43. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-239-C.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Zanata RL, Navarro MFL, Barbosa SH, Lauris JRP, Franco EB. Clinical Evaluation of Three Restorative Materials Applied in a Minimal Intervention Caries Treatment. J Public Health Dent. 2003;63(4):221–6. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-7325.2003.tb03503.x.CrossRefPubMed

28.

Donly KJ, Segura A, Kanellis M, Erickson RL. Clinical performance and caries inhibition of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and amalgam restorations. J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;130(10):1459–66. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1999.0056.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Silva RMO. Avaliação clínica e radiográfica de restaurações com resina bulk fill e cimento de ionômero de vidro modificado por resina: estudo comparativo em cavidades classe II de molares decíduos. Brazil: Dissertation, Universidade Federal de Uberlânida; 2017. https://doi.org/10.14393/ufu.di.2017.226.

30.

Hilgert LA, de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugerse NH, Frencken JE. Is high-viscosity glass-ionomer-cement a successor to amalgam for treating primary molars? Dent Mater. 2014;30(10):1172–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.07.010.CrossRefPubMed

31.

Jassal M, Mittal S, Tewari S. Clinical Effectiveness of a Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement and a Mild One-step Self-etch Adhesive Applied Actively and Passively in Noncarious Cervical Lesions: An 18-Month Clinical Trial. Oper Dent. 2018;43(6):581–92. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-147-C.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Menezes-silva R, Velasco SRM, Bresciani E, Bastos RDS, Navarro MFL. A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: two-year follow-up. J Appl Oral Sci. 2021;29:e20200609. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0609.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Molina GF, Ulloque MJ, Mazzolac I, Mulderd J, Frencken J. Randomized Controlled Trial of Class II ART High-viscosity Glass-ionomer Cement and Conventional Resin-composite restorations in Permanent Dentition: Two-year Survival. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(6):555–65. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a45512.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Oz FD, Meral E, Ergin E, Gurgan S. One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial. J Appl Oral Sci. 2020;28:e2020031. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0311.CrossRef

35.

Alves dos Santos MP, Luiz RR, Maia LC. Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results. J Dent. 2010;38(6):451–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004.CrossRefPubMed

36.

van Dijken JWV, Pallesen U, Benetti A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dent Mater. 2019;35(2):335–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.027.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Adeleke AA, Oginni,. Clinical evaluation of resin composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cement in non-carious cervical lesions. J West Afr Coll Surg. 2012;2(4):21–37.PubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Santiago SL, Passos VF, Vieira AH, Navarro MF, Lauris JR, Franco EB. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Braz Dent J. 2010;21(3):229–34. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402010000300010.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kotsanos N, Dionysopoulos P. Lack of effect of fluoride releasing resin modified glass ionomer restorations on the contacting surface of adjacent primary molars. A clinical prospective study. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2004;5(3):136–42.PubMed

40.

Skartveit L, Riordan PJ, al Dallal E. Effect of fluoride in amalgam on secondary caries incidence. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1994;22:122–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.1994.tb01586.x.CrossRefPubMed

41.

McComb D, Erickson RL, Maxymiw WG, Wood RE. A clinical comparison of glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in the treatment of cervical caries in xerostomic head and neck radiation patients. Oper Dent. 2002;27(5):430–7.PubMed

42.

Ersin NK, Candan U, Aykut A, Onçağ O, Eronat C, Kose T. A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach: results at 24 months. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(11):1529–36. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087.CrossRefPubMed

43.

Kaurich M, Kawakami K, Perez P, Munn T, Hasse AL, Garrett NR. A clinical comparison of a glass ionomer cement and a microfilled composite resin in restoring root caries: two-year results. Gen Dent. 1991;39(5):346–9.PubMed

44.

van Dijken JW. 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a resin-modified glass ionomer and a resin composite in Class III restorations. Am J Dent. 1996;9(5):195–8.PubMed

45.

Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Hellwig E. Clinical evaluation of a hybrid composite and a polyacid-modified composite resin in Class-II restorations in deciduous molars. Clin Oral Investig. 1998;2(3):115–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050055.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Mönting JS. Class II restorations with a polyacid-modified composite resin in primary molars placed in a dental practice: results of a two-year clinical evaluation. Oper Dent. 2000;25(4):259–64.PubMed

47.

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019;27:e20180678. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0678.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

48.

Gallo JR, Burgess JO, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ, Mercante DE, Davidson JM. Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials. Oper Dent. 2005;30(3):275–81.PubMed

49.

Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(7):2335–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-2028-4.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Kharma K, Zogheib T, Bhandi S, Mehanna C. Clinical evaluation of microhybrid composite and glass ionomer restorative material in permanent teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19(2):226–32. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2241.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Koubi S, Raskin A, Bukiet F, Pignoly C, Toca E, Tassery H. One-Year Clinical Evaluation of Two Resin Composites, Two Polymerization Methods, and a Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2006;7(5):42–53.CrossRefPubMed

52.

Mandari GJ, Frencken JE, van’t Hof MA. Six-year success rates of occlusal amalgam and glass-ionomer restorations placed using three minimal intervention approaches. Caries Res. 2003;37:246–53.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Pascon FM, Kantovitz KR, Caldo-Teixeira AS, Borges AFS, Silva TN, Puppin- Rontani RM, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. J Dent. 2006;34(6):381–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.003.CrossRefPubMed

54.

van Dijken JW. Durability of new restorative materials in Class III cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2001;3(1):65–70.PubMed

55.

Pollington S, van Noort R. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year follow-up. Am J Dent. 2008;21(1):49–52.PubMed

56.

Attin T, Opatowski A, Meyer C, Zingg-Meyer B, Buchalla W, Mönting JS. Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. Am J Dent. 2001;14(3):148–52.PubMed

57.

Valenzuela AV, Cifuentes SG, Cortés PM, Vega GF. Evaluación clínica a dos años de una amalgama fluorada / Clinical assessment of two years of a fluoride- containing amalgam. Odontol Chil. 1994;42(1):5–8.

58.

Franco EB, Benetti AR, Ishikiriama SK, Santiago SL, Lauris JR, Jorge MF, Navarro MF. 5-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin modified glass ionomer restorative system in non-carious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2006;31(4):403–8. https://doi.org/10.2341/05-87.CrossRefPubMed

59.

Svanberg M. Class II Amalgam Restorations, Glass-Ionomer Tunnel Restorations, and Caries Development on Adjacent Tooth Surfaces: A 3-Year Clinical Study. Caries Res. 1992;26(4):315–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000261459.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Medeiros FCD, Santos MM, Araújo IJS, Lima IPC. Clinical evaluation of two materials in the restoration of abfraction lesions. Braz J Oral Sci. 2015;14(4):287–93. https://doi.org/10.1590/1677-3225v14n4a07.CrossRef

61.

Ozgünaltay G, Onen A. Three-year clinical evaluation of a resin modified glass-ionomer cement and a composite resin in non-carious class V lesions. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29(11):1037–41. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00995.x.CrossRefPubMed

62.

KocVural U, Kerimova L, Kiremitci A. Clinical comparison of a micro- hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Odontology. 2020;109(2):376–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00550-8.CrossRef

63.

Miletić I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Marković D, Perić T, Ozkaya CA, Turkun LS. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: results of a 2-year multicenter study. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(3):235–47. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44547.CrossRefPubMed

64.

de Amorim RG, Leal SC, Mulder J, Creugers NHJ, Frencken JE. Amalgam and ART restorations in children: a controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18(1):117–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0955-x.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Kupietzky A, Atia Joachim D, Tal E, Moskovitz M. Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary molars: a randomized comparison trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2019;20(5):451–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-019-00423-x.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Longevity and cariostatic effects of everyday conventional glass-ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth: three-year results. J Dent Res. 1997;76(7):1387–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345970760070901.CrossRefPubMed

67.

Dutta BN, Gauba K, Tewari A, Chawla HS. Silver amalgam versus resin modified GIC class-II restorations in primary molars: Twelve-month clinical evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent. 2001;19(3):118–22.

68.

Menezes-Silva R, Velasco SRM, Bastos RS, Molina G, Honório HM, Frencken JE, Navarro MFL. Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months. Clin Oral Investig. 2019;23(9):3623–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2787-1.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Akman H, Tusun G. Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass Ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children. Niger J Clin Pract. 2020;23(4):489–97. https://doi.org/10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Frencken JE, van Hof MA, Taifour D, Al-Zaher I. Effectiveness of ART and traditional amalgam approach in restoring single-surface cavities in posterior teeth of permanent dentitions in school children after 6.3 years. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2007;35:207–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00322.x.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, Teglers PT. Eight-year study on conventional glass ionomer and amalgam restorations in primary teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2004;62(1):37–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016350310008689.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Haveman CW, Summitt JB, Burgess JO, Carlson K. Three restorative materials and topical fluoride gel used in xerostomic patients A clinical comparison. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003;134(2):177–84. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0131.CrossRefPubMed

73.

Namgung C, Rho YJ, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH. A retrospective clinical study of cervical restorations: longevity and failure-prognostic variables. Oper Dent. 2013;38(4):376–85. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-416-C.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Tyas MJ. Cariostatic effect of glass ionomer cement: a five-year clinical study. Aust Dent J. 1991;36(3):236–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1991.tb04710.x.CrossRefPubMed

75.

Mjör IA, Jokstad A. Five-year study of Class II restorations in permanent teeth using amalgam, glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cerment and resin-based composite materials. J Dent. 1993;21(6):338–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(93)90006-c.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Balkaya H, Arslan S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent. 2020;45(1):E32–42. https://doi.org/10.2341/19-078-C.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Daou MH, Tavernier B, Meyer JM. Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2008;118(4):290–5.PubMed

78.

Levy SM, Jensen ME. A clinical evaluation of the restoration of root surface caries. Spec Care Dentist. 1990;10(5):156–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-4505.1990.tb00784.x.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Burgess JO, Gallo JR, Ripps AH, Walker RS, Ireland EJ. Clinical evaluation of four Class 5 restorative materials: 3-year recall. Am J Dent. 2004;17(3):147–50.PubMed

80.

Fagundes TC, Barata TJ, Bresciani E, Santiago S, Franco EB, Lauris JR, Navarro MF. Seven-year clinical performance of resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer restorations in noncarious cervical lesions. Oper Dent. 2014;39(6):578–87. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-054-C.CrossRefPubMed

81.

De Moor RJG, Stassen IG, Veldt YV, Torbeyns D, Hommez GMG. Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(1):31–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0355-4.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Ostlund J, Möller K, Koch G. Amalgam, composite resin and glass ionomer cement in Class II restorations in primary molars - a three-year clinical evaluation. Swed Dental J. 1992;16(3):81–6.

83.

Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, YalcinCakir F, Ergin E. A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities. J Dent. 2020;94:103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013.CrossRefPubMed

84.

Welbury RR, Walls AW, Murray JJ, McCabe JF. The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration. Br Dent J. 1991;170(5):177–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Powell LV, Gordon GE, Johnson GH. Clinical comparison of Class V resin composite and glass ionomer restorations. Am J Dent. 1992;5(5):249–52.PubMed

86.

Hollanders ACC, Kuper NK, Maske TT, Huysmans MDNJM. Secondary caries in situ models: a systematic review. Caries Res. 2018;52(6):454–62. https://doi.org/10.1159/000487200.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Francois P, Fouquet V, Attal JP, Dursun E. Commercially available fluoride releasing restorative Materials: a review and a proposal for classification. Materials (Basel). 2020;13(10):2313. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313.CrossRefPubMed

88.

Casagrande L, Dalpian DM, Ardenghi TM, Zanatta FB, Balbinot CE, García-Godoy F, de Araujo FB. Randomized clinical trial of adhesive restorations in primary molars. 18-month results. Am J Dent. 2013;26(6):351–5.PubMed

89.

Gugnani N, Gugnani S. ART with high viscosity GIC and composite restorations in class II cavities: can they thrive in the post-amalgam era? Evid Based Dent. 2020;21(1):22–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-020-0078-6.CrossRefPubMed

90.

Hurley S. Dental amalgam: a material choice. Br Dent J. 2022;233(10):872–3. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-5218-2.CrossRefPubMed

91.

Sanderson S. The great dental amalgam debate. Br Dent J. 2022;233(10):874. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-022-5217-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

92.

Opdam NJM, Collares K, Hickel R, Bayne SC, Loomans BA, Cenci MS, Lynch CD, Correa MB, Demarco F, Schwendicke F, Wilson NHF. Clinical studies in restorative dentistry: New directions and new demands. Dent Mater. 2018;34(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.08.187.CrossRefPubMed

93.

Nedeljkovic I, De Munck J, Vanloy A, Declerck D, Lambrechts P, Peumans M, Teughels W, Van Meerbeek B, Van Landuyt KL. Secondary caries: prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(2):683–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-02894-0.CrossRefPubMed

94.

Hitij T, Fidler A. Radiopacity of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2013;17(4):1167–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0797-y.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
Authors: Noeleni Souza Pinto
Gabriela Rebouças Jorge
Jader Vasconcelos
Livia Fernandes Probst
Alessandro Diogo De-Carli
Andrea Freire
Publication date: 01-12-2023
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keyword: Caries
Published in: BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03110-y

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Isolated nonsyndromic cleft palate: multicenter epidemiological study in the Brazil

Conservative endodontic microsurgery to protect critical anatomical structures–selective curettage: a case series

Effects of self-perceived psychological stress on clinical symptoms, cortisol, and cortisol/ACTH ratio in patients with burning mouth syndrome

Wear behaviour of lithography ceramic manufactured dental zirconia

Trehalose versus carboxymethylcellulose oral spray for relieving radiation-induced xerostomia in head and neck cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial

Restoring black triangle with bioclear matrix versus conventional celluloid matrix method: a randomized clinical trial