Direct materials for restoring caries lesions

Sugars and Dental Caries. World Health Organization; 2017.

Oral and dental health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dental caries among adults and older adults: older adults aged 65 years or older. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

• Watt R.G.
• Daly B.
• Allison P.
• et al.

Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action.

Lancet. 2019; 394: 261-272

• Schwendicke F.
• Frencken J.E.
• Bjørndal L.
• et al.

Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal.

Adv Dent Res. 2016; 28: 58-67

• Fontana M.
• Pilcher L.
• Tampi M.P.
• et al.

Caries management for the modern age: improving practice one guideline at a time.

JADA. 2018; 149: 935-937

• Rasines Alcaraz M.G.
• Veitz-Keenan A.
• Sahrmann P.
• et al.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; ()

• Estrich C.G.
• Lipman R.D.
• Araujo M.W.B.

Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged ≥15 years: NHANES 2011-2016.

J Public Health Dent. 2021; 81: 327-330

• Page M.J.
• McKenzie J.E.
• Bossuyt P.M.
• et al.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

BMJ. 2021; 372: n71

• Lefebvre C.
• Glanville J.
• Briscoe S.
• et al.

Technical supplement to chapter 4: searching for and selecting studies.

in: Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane,
2022

• Friedrich J.O.
• Adhikari N.K.
• Beyene J.

Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data.

BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 5

A clinical evaluation of anterior conventional, microfiller, and hybrid composite resin fillings: a 6-year follow-up study.

Acta Odontol Scand. 1986; 44: 357-367

• van Dijken J.W.
• Pallesen U.

Randomized 3-year clinical evaluation of Class I and II posterior resin restorations placed with a bulk-fill resin composite and a one-step self-etching adhesive.

J Adhes Dent. 2015; 17: 81-88

Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. 1971.

Clin Oral Investig. 2005; 9: 215-232

Practical guide to the meta-analysis of rare events.

Evid Based Ment Health. 2018; 21: 72-76

• Sterne J.A.C.
• Savović J.
• Page M.J.
• et al.

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.

BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898

• Guyatt G.H.
• Oxman A.D.
• Kunz R.
• et al.
• GRADE Working Group

What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.

BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998

• Zeng L.
• Brignardello-Petersen R.
• Hultcrantz M.
• et al.

GRADE guidelines, 32: GRADE offers guidance on choosing targets of GRADE certainty of evidence ratings.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 137: 163-175

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: 489-497

• Andersson-Wenckert I.
• Sunnegardh-Gronberg K.

Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: a two-year clinical evaluation.

Acta Odontol Scand. 2006; 64: 334-340

• Araujo M.P.
• Innes N.P.
• Bonifácio C.C.
• et al.

Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting.

BMC Oral Health. 2020; 20: 318

• Atabek D.
• Aktas N.
• Sakaryali D.
• Bani M.

Two-year clinical performance of sonic-resin placement system in posterior restorations.

Quintessence Int. 2017; 48: 743-751

A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities.

Oper Dent. 2020; 45: E32-E42

A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations.

Aust Dent J. 1994; 39: 77-81

• Collins C.J.
• Bryant R.W.
• Hodge K.L.

A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings.

J Dent. 1998; 26: 311-317

• Daou M.H.
• Tavernier B.
• Meyer J.M.

Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars.

J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009; 34: 53-58

• De Moor R.J.
• Stassen I.G.
• van ‘t Veldt Y.
• Torbeyns D.
• Hommez G.M.

Two-year clinical performance of glass ionomer and resin composite restorations in xerostomic head- and neck-irradiated cancer patients.

Clin Oral Investig. 2011; 15: 31-38

• Dermata A.
• Papageorgiou S.N.
• Fragkou S.
• Kotsanos N.

Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial.

Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2018; 19: 393-401

• Dresch W.
• Volpato S.
• Gomes J.C.
• Ribeiro N.R.
• Reis A.
• Loguercio A.D.

Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.

Oper Dent. 2006; 31: 409-417

• Ehlers V.
• Gran K.
• Callaway A.
• Azrak B.
• Ernst C.P.

One-year clinical performance of flowable bulk-fill composite vs conventional compomer restorations in primary molars.

J Adhes Dent. 2019; 21: 247-254

• El-Housseiny A.A.
• Alamoudi N.M.
• 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: 522-532

• Ercan E.
• Dulgergil C.T.
• Soyman M.
• Dalli M.
• Yildirim I.

A field-trial of two restorative materials used with atraumatic restorative treatment in rural Turkey: 24-month results.

J Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17: 307-314

• Ersin N.K.
• 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.

JADA. 2006; 137: 1529-1536

• Espindola-Castro L.F.
• Guimarães R.P.
• de Souza F.B.
• et al.

A 14-year follow-up of resin composite occlusal restorations: split mouth randomised clinical trial and wear evaluation by optical coherence tomography.

J Clin Diag Res. 2019; 13: ZC10-ZC15

• Fuks A.B.
• Araujo F.B.
• Osorio L.B.
• Hadani P.E.
• Pinto A.S.

Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars.

Pediatr Dent. 2000; 22: 479-485

• Gurgan S.
• Kutuk Z.B.
• Yalcin Cakir 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; 94103175

• Hatirli H.
• Yasa B.
• Celik E.U.

Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on minimally invasive occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a two-year randomised split-mouth study.

Clin Oral Investig. 2021; 25: 5493-5503

• Hayes M.
• da Mata C.
• Tada S.
• et al.

Evaluation of biodentine in the restoration of root caries: a randomized controlled trial.

JDR Clin Trans Res. 2016; 1: 51-58

• Hoseinifar R.
• Mortazavi-Lahijani E.
• Mollahassani H.
• Ghaderi A.

One year clinical evaluation of a low shrinkage composite compared with a packable composite resin: a randomized clinical trial.

J Dent (Tehran). 2017; 14: 84-91

Conventional versus resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for Class II restorations in primary molars: a 3-year clinical study.

Int J Paediatr Dent. 2003; 13: 2-8

• 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: 226-232

• Koc Vural 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. 2021; 109: 376-384

Clinical evaluation of Kerr SonicFill 2 vs 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme Ultra Universal Restorative. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03032705. Updated December 13, 2021.

• 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: 451-456

• Loguercio A.D.
• Reis A.
• Hernandez P.A.
• Macedo R.P.
• Busato A.L.

3-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.

J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33: 144-151

• Loguercio A.D.
• Lorini E.
• Weiss R.V.
• et al.

A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations.

J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9: 57-64

• McComb D.
• Erickson R.L.
• Maxymiw W.G.
• Wood R.E.

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: 430-437

• Molina G.F.
• Ulloque M.J.
• Mazzola I.
• Mulder 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: 555-565

Clinical performance of Equia FIL GC high-density glass ionomer compared to Nu Alloy amalgam restorations in patients with disabilities with symptomless caries: 26 month evaluation randomized controlled trial. anzctr.org.au identifier: ACTRN12621001668897.

Clinical efficacy of the conventional glass ionomer cement and resin modified glass ionomer cement in primary molars.

J Ayub Med Coll Abbottabad. 2014; 26: 587-590

• Mundada M.V.
• Hugar S.M.
• Hallikerimath S.
• Davalbhakta R.
• Gokhale N.S.
• Shah S.V.

Comparative evaluation of retention and antibacterial efficacy of compomer and glass hybrid bulk fill restorative material as a conservative adhesive restoration in children with mixed dentition: an in vivo two-arm parallel-group double-blinded randomized controlled study.

Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2020; 13: S45-S54

• Olegario I.C.
• Hesse D.
• Mendes F.M.
• Bonifácio C.C.
• Raggio D.P.

Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial.

Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23 ()

• Palaniappan S.
• Elsen L.
• Lijnen I.
• Peumans M.
• Meerbeek B.V.
• Lambrechts P.

Three-year randomised clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance, quantitative and qualitative wear patterns of hybrid composite restorations.

Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14: 441-458

• Sadeghi M.
• Lynch C.D.
• Shahamat N.

Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.

J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37: 532-537

• Shi L.
• Wang X.
• Zhao Q.
• et al.

Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: three-year results of a randomized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial.

Oper Dent. 2010; 35: 11-19

• Wilson M.A.
• Cowan A.J.
• Randall R.C.
• Crisp R.J.
• Wilson N.H.

A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results.

Oper Dent. 2002; 27: 423-429

• 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; 27e20180678

• Daou M.H.
• Tavernier B.
• Meyer J.M.

Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.

Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2008; 118: 290-295

• Gurgan S.
• Kutuk Z.B.
• Ergin E.
• Oztas S.S.
• Cakir F.Y.

Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system.

Oper Dent. 2015; 40: 134-143

• Loguercio A.D.
• Reis A.
• Rodrigues Filho L.E.
• Busato A.L.

One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.

Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 427-434

• Tedesco T.K.
• Gimenez T.
• Floriano I.
• et al.

Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PLoS One. 2018; 13e0206296

• Pires C.W.
• Pedrotti D.
• Lenzi T.L.
• Soares F.Z.M.
• Ziegelmann P.K.
• Rocha R.O.

Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis.

Braz Oral Res. 2018; 32: e10

• Dias A.G.A.
• Magno M.B.
• Delbem A.C.B.
• Cunha R.F.
• Maia L.C.
• Pessan J.P.

Clinical performance of glass ionomer cement and composite resin in Class II restorations in primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Dent. 2018; 73: 1-13

• Worthington H.V.
• Khangura S.
• Seal K.
• et al.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth.

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 8 ()

• Vetromilla B.M.
• Opdam N.J.
• Leida F.L.
• et al.

Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

JADA. 2020; 151: 614-624,e18

• Afrashtehfar K.I.
• Emami E.
• Ahmadi M.
• Eilayyan O.
• Abi-Nader S.
• Tamimi F.

Failure rate of single-unit restorations on posterior vital teeth: a systematic review.

J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 345-353,e8

• Meyer-Lueckel H.
• Machiulskiene V.
• Giacaman R.A.

How to intervene in the root caries process? Systematic review and meta-analyses.

Caries Res. 2019; 53: 599-608

• Maran B.M.
• de Geus J.L.
• Gutierrez M.F.
• et al.

Nanofilled/nanohybrid and hybrid resin-based composite in patients with direct restorations in posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

J Dent. 2020; 99103407

• Brignardello-Petersen R.
• Guyatt G.H.
• Mustafa R.A.
• et al.

GRADE guidelines, 33: addressing imprecision in a network meta-analysis.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 139: 49-56

• Puhan M.A.
• Schünemann H.J.
• Murad M.H.
• et al.
• GRADE Working Group

A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis.

BMJ. 2014; 349: g5630

• Brignardello-Petersen R.
• Bonner A.
• Alexander P.E.
• et al.
• GRADE Working Group

Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis.

J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 93: 36-44

• Alonso-Coello P.
• Oxman A.D.
• Moberg J.
• et al.
• GRADE Working Group

GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well informed healthcare choices—2, clinical practice guidelines.

BMJ. 2016; 353: i2089