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.
Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action.
Lancet. 2019; 394: 261-272
Managing carious lesions: consensus recommendations on carious tissue removal.
Adv Dent Res. 2016; 28: 58-67
Caries management for the modern age: improving practice one guideline at a time.
JADA. 2018; 149: 935-937
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014; ()
Dental amalgam restorations in nationally representative sample of US population aged ≥15 years: NHANES 2011-2016.
J Public Health Dent. 2021; 81: 327-330
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
BMJ. 2021; 372: n71
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,
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
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
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials.
BMJ. 2019; 366: l4898
What is “quality of evidence” and why is it important to clinicians?.
BMJ. 2008; 336: 995-998
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
Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: a two-year clinical evaluation.
Acta Odontol Scand. 2006; 64: 334-340
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
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
A clinical evaluation of posterior composite resin restorations: 8-year findings.
J Dent. 1998; 26: 311-317
Two-year clinical evaluation of three restorative materials in primary molars.
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009; 34: 53-58
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
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
Clinical evaluation of a nanofilled composite in posterior teeth: 12-month results.
Oper Dent. 2006; 31: 409-417
One-year clinical performance of flowable bulk-fill composite vs conventional compomer restorations in primary molars.
J Adhes Dent. 2019; 21: 247-254
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
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
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
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
Clinical and radiographic assessment of Class II esthetic restorations in primary molars.
Pediatr Dent. 2000; 22: 479-485
A randomized controlled 10 years follow up of a glass ionomer restorative material in class I and class II cavities.
J Dent. 2020; 94103175
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
Evaluation of biodentine in the restoration of root caries: a randomized controlled trial.
JDR Clin Trans Res. 2016; 1: 51-58
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
Clinical evaluation of microhybrid composite and glass ionomer restorative material in permanent teeth.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018; 19: 226-232
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.
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
3-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable composite resin restorations.
J Oral Rehabil. 2006; 33: 144-151
A 12-month clinical evaluation of composite resins in class III restorations.
J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9: 57-64
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
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
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
Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial.
Clin Oral Investig. 2019; 23 ()
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
Eighteen-month clinical evaluation of microhybrid, packable and nanofilled resin composites in Class I restorations.
J Oral Rehabil. 2010; 37: 532-537
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
A practice-based, randomized, controlled clinical trial of a new resin composite restorative: one-year results.
Oper Dent. 2002; 27: 423-429
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
Clinical evaluation of four different dental restorative materials: one-year results.
Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2008; 118: 290-295
Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system.
Oper Dent. 2015; 40: 134-143
One-year clinical evaluation of posterior packable resin composite restorations.
Oper Dent. 2001; 26: 427-434
Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
PLoS One. 2018; 13e0206296
Is there a best conventional material for restoring posterior primary teeth? A network meta-analysis.
Braz Oral Res. 2018; 32: e10
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
Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021; 8 ()
Treatment options for large posterior restorations: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
JADA. 2020; 151: 614-624,e18
Failure rate of single-unit restorations on posterior vital teeth: a systematic review.
J Prosthet Dent. 2017; 117: 345-353,e8
How to intervene in the root caries process? Systematic review and meta-analyses.
Caries Res. 2019; 53: 599-608
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
GRADE guidelines, 33: addressing imprecision in a network meta-analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 139: 49-56
A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis.
BMJ. 2014; 349: g5630
Advances in the GRADE approach to rate the certainty in estimates from a network meta-analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 93: 36-44
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