Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36577639›Full record

ReviewInternational dental journal2023

Bioactivity of Dental Restorative Materials: FDI Policy Statement.

Gottfried Schmalz, Reinhard Hickel, Richard Bengt Price, Jeffrey A Platt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Biological Effects on S-PRG: An Integrative Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Next-Gen Restorative Materials to Revolutionise Smiles.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gottfried SchmalzDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany; Department of Periodontology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. Electronic address: Gottfried.schmalz@ukr.de.
Reinhard HickelDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Richard Bengt PriceDepartment of Dental Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Jeffrey A PlattDepartment of Biomedical Sciences and Comprehensive Care, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Indiana University School of Dentistry, IUPUI, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term bioactivity is being increasingly used in medicine and dentistry. Due to its positive connotation, it is frequently utilised for advertising dental restorative materials. However, there is confusion about what the term means, and concerns have been raised about its potential overuse. Therefore, FDI decided to publish a Policy Statement about the bioactivity of dental restorative materials to clarify the term and provide some caveats for its use in advertising. Background information for this Policy Statement was taken from the current literature, mainly from the PubMed database and the internet. Bioactive restorative materials should have beneficial/desired effects. These effects should be local, intended, and nontoxic and should not interfere with a material's principal purpose, namely dental tissue replacement. Three mechanisms for the bioactivity of such materials have been identified: purely biological, mixed biological/chemical, or strictly chemical. Therefore, when the term bioactivity is used in an advertisement or in a description of a dental restorative material, scientific evidence (in vitro or in situ, and preferably in clinical studies) should be provided describing the mechanism of action, the duration of the effect (especially for materials releasing antibacterial substances), and the lack of significant adverse biological side effects (including the development and spread of antimicrobial resistance). Finally, it should be documented that the prime purpose, for instance, to be used to rebuild the form and function of lost tooth substance or lost teeth, is not impaired, as demonstrated by data from in vitro and clinical studies. The use of the term bioactive dental restorative material in material advertisement/information should be restricted to materials that fulfil all the requirements as described in the FDI Policy Statement.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Restoration, PermanentComposite ResinsDental MaterialsHumansPolicyComposite ResinsDental MaterialsCalcium silicate cementCariesFluoridePulpRegenerationRepair

Identifiers

PMID36577639
PMCPMC9875272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.