ReviewCureus2026
Bioactive Glass-Based Materials Versus Conventional Materials for Primary Tooth Restorations: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The clinical management of carious primary teeth is complicated by distinct morphological features and behavioral challenges. Bioactive glass-based materials are biomimetic alternatives to conventional restorations, with promising remineralization potential and improved mechanical durability. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of bioactive materials compared with that of conventional restorative materials in primary dentition. A protocol-driven (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD420261329678), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020)-compliant search was conducted across six major databases and grey literature up to May 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bioactive materials (e.g., ACTIVA BioACTIVE, Cention N, glass hybrids) with conventional materials (e.g., resin-modified glass ionomer cements, composites, compomers) with a minimum six-month follow-up were included. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 (The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK). A random-effects meta-analysis utilizing the restricted maximum likelihood estimator with Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment was performed for clinical success. The certainty of evidence was appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Seventeen studies (16 RCTs and 1 in vitro) were included. For the primary outcome, 16 RCTs comprising 1,293 randomized pediatric participants and 1,028 successful events were pooled. No statistically significant difference in overall clinical success/retention was observed between bioactive and conventional materials (RR = 1.00; 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.04; p = 0.9635; I² = 50.8%). Subgroup analyses by comparator class and meta-regression for follow-up duration revealed no significant effect modification. Secondary analyses indicated that bioactive materials may significantly reduce operator placement time (mean difference = -2.37 minutes; p < 0.0001). The overall certainty of the evidence for clinical success was rated as high. Bioactive materials demonstrate clinical efficacy and retention rates equivalent to those of established conventional restorative materials in primary teeth. Given their non-inferior clinical performance and potential workflow efficiencies, bioactive materials are a highly viable and biomimetic option for pediatric restorative dentistry.
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.