SynthesisBMC oral health2023
Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping Systematic Reviews on the Management of Dental Caries in Primary Teeth: A Meta-research.Current pediatric reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- A two-year randomized clinical trial of bulk-fill and ion-releasing composites with universal adhesives in class V carious lesions.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of low-shrinkage giomer resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in cervical carious lesions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Recent Advances in Caries Prevention and Non-Invasive Management: From Ecological Modulation to Precision Interventions.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- The Cariostatic Mechanisms of Fluoride-An Updated Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Effect of different dentin etching protocols on the immediate microtensile bond strength of two bulk-fill restorative systems in class I cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Clinical and Laboratory Performance of ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of Pediatric Evidence.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Review
- Oral Manifestations of Sjögren's Syndrome: Recognition, Management, and Interdisciplinary Care.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Fluoride release and recharge from bioactive resinsJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Resin composite aggregated S-PRG particles are not superior to non-S-PRG under microcosm biofilm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Ion-Releasing Restorations versus Composite Restorations in Dental Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis 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.
methodsA 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.
resultsSixty-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.
conclusionThere 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.