Next Article in Journal
Use of Individually Designed CAD/CAM Suprastructures for Dental Reconstruction in Patients with Cleft Lip and Palate
Next Article in Special Issue
Exploring the Possible Impact of Oral Nutritional Supplements on Children’s Oral Health: An In Vitro Investigation
Previous Article in Journal
Effect of Dentin Conditioning with EDTA and Diode Lasers on Expression of Odontoblast-like Cell Markers of Dental Pulp Stem Cells
Previous Article in Special Issue
Association between Malnutrition and Dental Caries in Iraqi Kurdish Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Dentistry Journal
Volume 11
Issue 9
10.3390/dj11090211
dentistry-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

by
Srikurmam Manisha
1,*,
Soumya S Shetty
1,
Vini Mehta
2,*,
Rizwan SA
3 and
Aida Meto
1,4,5
1
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Dental Research Cell, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune 411018, Maharashtra, India
3
Scientist-D, ICMR-National Institute of Epidemiology, Chennai 600077, India
4
Department of Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, University of Aldent, 1007 Tirana, Albania
5
Clinical Microbiology, School of Dentistry, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, 41125 Modena, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dent. J. 2023, 11(9), 211; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090211
Submission received: 13 June 2023 / Revised: 3 September 2023 / Accepted: 5 September 2023 / Published: 8 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Updates and Highlights in Cariology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Dental cements are in a constant state of evolution, adapting to better align with the intricacies of tooth structure and the dynamic movements within the oral cavity. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement—an innovative variant of modified glass ionomer cements—in terms of its ability to withstand compressive forces and prevent microleakage during dental caries reconstruction. An extensive search was conducted across various databases, encompassing PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Google Scholar, prominent journals, unpublished studies, conference proceedings, and cross-referenced sources. The selected studies underwent meticulous scrutiny according to predetermined criteria, followed by the assessment of quality and the determination of evidence levels. In total, 16 studies were incorporated into this systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). The findings suggest that both compomer and giomer cements exhibit greater compressive strength and reduced microleakage values than zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. In contrast, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (GIC) demonstrate less favorable performance in these regards when compared with zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement.

1. Introduction

Dental caries involves the localized destruction of tooth substance, encompassing both organic and inorganic components, leading to the emergence of various observable symptoms. This condition results from the accumulation of plaque, triggering alterations in the microbial environment and subsequently causing localized shifts in pH [1]. Consequently, timely identification and treatment are advised to prevent possible complications if disease progression reaches the pulp chamber. The initial stages of dental caries typically manifest as white spot lesions, which can progress to discoloration without timely intervention [2]. Therapeutic restorative treatment is aimed at eliminating the carious lesion and reinstating the tooth’s original contours and contacts [3]. With the introduction of adhesive restorative materials, clinicians have the opportunity to choose conservative preparations that facilitate the preservation of maximum tooth structure, while also ensuring aesthetic concern, given that the majority of adhesive restorations are designed to match the natural tooth color [3,4]. Dental cements represent restorative materials composed of small biomolecules that demonstrate biocompatibility and contribute positively to tooth structure. These materials ideally possess qualities such as tooth adhesion, antimicrobial attributes, and resilience against masticatory forces during normal function and parafunction [5]. Glass ionomer cement (GIC), also known as “polyalkenoate cement”, is among the earliest dental cements with the unique attributes of fluoride release and adherence to tooth structure [6,7]. These cements are consistently fortified through the incorporation of fine particles, enhancing their ability to withstand higher forces without compromising aesthetics [8,9].
Despite extensive clinical experience, these cements still exhibit certain limitations [10]. Compressive strength stands as a pivotal factor to be considered within the oral cavity’s dynamic environment. This strength signifies a restorative material’s resistance to intraoral forces, including compressive and tensile stresses generated by functional and parafunctional movements [11]. Testing often serves to predict a restorative material’s clinical longevity [12]. Conventional GICs typically demonstrate compressive strengths ranging from 150 to 220 MPa [10,13]. While achieving properties akin to natural teeth is impractical, efforts should be directed toward refining properties to enhance clinical durability [14]. During the setting process, adhesive materials may undergo either shrinkage or expansion. Materials that undergo shrinkage encounter difficulties in effectively sealing against the tooth surface, potentially leading to the infiltration of bacteria [3]. This phenomenon, known as microleakage, is frequently manifested as marginal staining, postoperative sensitivity, and the development of secondary caries around the restoration site [15]. Consequently, the selection of a restorative material should prioritize its adaptability to the tooth structure.
The main objective of this study was to conduct a thorough evaluation of the effectiveness of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement, an innovative variant of modified glass ionomer cements, in the context of dental caries reconstruction. Our specific aims included a detailed assessment of its mechanical properties, notably compressive strength, and its ability to prevent microleakage. We pursued this goal through a comprehensive systematic review and network meta-analysis, directly comparing zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement with conventional modified glass ionomer cements. Our ultimate aim was to contribute evidence-based insights that can inform clinical decision-making regarding the efficacy of this material in restoring teeth impacted by carious lesions.

2. Materials and Methods

The protocol for this current review was registered and assigned the identification number CRD42022310393 in the PROSPERO database, maintained by the National Institute for Health Research, University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination. The preparation of this manuscript adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension (PRISMA) statement, designed for systematic reviews that incorporate network meta-analyses [16,17]. It adheres to evidence based practice for clinical question [18].

2.1. Inclusion Criteria

In vitro studies conducted on extracted human teeth within the time frame of 1 January 2015 to 1 January 2022 were included. The studies employed cement specimens and focused on the comparison of compressive strength and microleakage properties between zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement and modified glass ionomer cements.

2.2. Exclusion Criteria

Retrospective clinical studies, case reports, animal studies, and studies that did not measure compressive strength and microleakage properties were excluded.

2.3. Search Methods and Data Collection

A comprehensive literature search encompassing major electronic databases—PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase—was supplemented with additional sources, including Google Scholar, notable journals, unpublished studies, conference proceedings, and cross-references. The search, conducted from 1 January 2015, to 1 January 2022, employed an exhaustive query (Table S1) to identify eligible studies, utilizing keywords such as “cement specimen”, “zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement”, “modified glass ionomer cement”, “compressive strength”, and “microleakage”. Initially developed for the MEDLINE database, the search strategy was constructed through a blend of medical subject headings (MeSH) and accessible text terms, later adapted as necessary for other databases. Results were imported into a bibliographic database to facilitate deduplication, while cross-references were meticulously reviewed. Consistency was maintained in applying a publication date filter across all searches. Two authors independently executed the literature search, assessed the study articles, and extracted pertinent data. This review process consisted of two stages. Firstly, the titles and abstracts of all articles were scrutinized, followed by a meticulous evaluation of full-text content. Studies aligning with the selection criteria underwent subsequent data extraction. Employing tailored data extraction forms within Microsoft Excel, the two authors independently collected relevant information. Any differences in extraction were resolved through constructive dialogue between the authors. For each chosen study, the subsequent information was extracted from a standardized form, where available: author and year of publication, study design, tested properties, participant demographics, interventions, comparators, intervention group sample size, comparator group sample size, specimen dimensions, testing methodologies, dye utilization, microscopic analysis, scoring criteria, and author’s conclusions.

2.4. Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal tool [19] and the Checklist for Reporting In Vitro Studies (CRIS) [20] were utilized to evaluate the risk of bias in eligible studies. These tools were customized, involving the addition or removal of specific questions to align with the reviewers’ judgment. The assessment encompassed various parameters crucial for evaluating study quality. These included: detailing of sample size calculations, randomization of teeth, comparable baseline properties across treatment groups, preparation of samples by a single operator, operator blinding, uniform measurement of outcome groups, assessor blinding, consistent outcome measurement, appropriate statistical analysis, comprehensive result reporting for all samples, and the absence of other biases in the study design. For each parameter, its presence was noted as “YES” and absence as “NO”. Then, the classification of studies based on risk of bias was determined as follows: studies with 1–5 “YES” responses were categorized as having a high risk of bias, those with 6–7 “YES” responses as having a moderate risk, and those with 8 or more “YES” responses as having a low risk. This assessment was independently conducted by two authors. Resolutions were achieved through collective deliberation among all authors to ensure unanimous decisions. Notably, no studies were excluded on the grounds of risk of bias.

2.5. Quantitative Analysis and Synthesis of the Network Meta-Analysis (NMA)

The quantitative evaluation aimed to assess and juxtapose zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements and modified glass ionomer cements in relation to their compressive strength and microleakage attributes for dental caries reconstruction. For each outcome, we computed the mean difference (MD) and established the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for both compressive strength and microleakage. The effectiveness of these prespecified outcomes was determined through the comparison of zirconia with other compounds. By leveraging the Netmeta package within the R programming environment, a random-effects network meta-analysis was conducted individually for the two outcomes. Heterogeneity was characterized using the I2 statistic. To showcase the interrelations among various studies, network plots were provided, along with league tables presenting the MD and 95% CI for every conceivable compound comparison. Illustrative forest plots were employed to graphically portray the mean difference between compounds, while funnel plots demonstrated the potential extent of publication bias. A ranking of treatments from highest to lowest was facilitated using p-score statistics. To assess the proportion of direct and indirect evidence, evidence plots (Figure S1) were generated for each comparison, accompanied by the calculation of mean path length and parallelism. Additionally, split plots were crafted to compare direct, indirect, and network-level estimates for each comparison (Figure S2). To gauge the consistency within the network, heat plots were constructed for possible comparisons (Figure S3). A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant, and all analyses were executed using R software version 4.1.2.

3. Results

3.1. Search Results and Study Selection

The process of literature search is depicted in Figure 1 (PRISMA flowchart). Initially, a total of 1002 pertinent articles were pinpointed via electronic databases and manual exploration. Upon eliminating duplicates, 901 articles underwent title and abstract screening. Following this stage, a thorough evaluation of 19 full-text articles was undertaken, resulting in the inclusion of 16 studies [21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], which encompassed systematic reviews and network meta-analyses.

3.2. Study Characteristics

Among the 16 studies incorporated in the review, 7 [22,23,24,25,26,27,28] solely assessed compressive strength, while 1 study [21] evaluated both compressive strength and microleakage. Within this subset, eight studies [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] concentrated solely on microleakage. The intervention across all studies encompassed zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements, including variations like zirconomer and zirconomer-improved glass ionomer cements, available commercially. As comparators, modified glass ionomer cements were employed, specifically high-viscosity GICs (commercially known as ketac molar, type IX, and type IX extra GICs), giomer (commercially recognized as beautifil II cement), silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement (commercially referred to as Xtracem-S, miracle mix), compomer (commercially identified as dyract-XP, compoglass F), glass hybrid (commercially designated as equia forte), amalgomer CR, resin-modified glass ionomer cement (commercially available as Fuji II LC capsule), nano-ionomer, and glass carbomer (commercially labeled as glassfill). For a detailed composition of each cement considered within this review, please refer to Table S2.

3.2.1. Description of Compressive Strength Studies

The studies conducted during the period of 2016 to 2020 employed a comparative cross-sectional study design. The majority of these studies featured a sample size of 10. Notably, all studies employed cylindrical cement specimens, albeit with varying measurements. The number of comparators ranged from one in two studies [24,25] to two in three studies [21,22,27], three in one study [26], four in another [28], and five in a single study [23]. In the context of specific cement types, five studies encompassed high-viscosity glass ionomer cements [21,22,24,25,26,28], while four studies involved giomer [21,23,26,28]. For silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement, there was one study [22], and similarly, one study pertained to glass carbomer [28]. Resin-modified glass ionomer cement [23,27], compomer [23,26], glass hybrid [23,27], and amalgomer CR [23,28] each featured in two studies. Across these investigations, the findings generally suggested that the compressive strength of giomer, compomer, and high-viscosity glass ionomer cements surpassed that of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. An overview of studies examining compressive strength is provided in Table 1.

3.2.2. Description of Microleakage Studies

All studies incorporated within this analysis were conducted between 2017 and 2020, adopting an in vitro study design. The majority of these studies featured a sample size of 10. Notably, the number of comparatives in these studies exhibited variability: one comparative in five studies [21,29,30,33,35], two comparatives in three studies [33,34,36], and three comparatives in one study [31]. Turning to specific cement types, three studies encompassed high-viscosity glass ionomer cement [21,29,36], three studies centered around giomer [31,35], and three studies were dedicated to resin-modified glass ionomer cement [31,32,33]. For silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement [30,36] and glass hybrid [32,34], two studies were available. A single study each pertained to glass carbomer [34] and nano-ionomer [31]. Diverse test types were employed across these studies, ranging from dye penetration in eight studies [21,30,31,32,33,34,35,36] to dye absorbance in one study [29]. The dyes utilized encompassed methylene blue, silver paint, silver nitrate, and basic fuchsine. The methodologies of microscopy varied, with spectrophotometry in one study [29], stereomicroscopy in seven studies [21,30,31,32,33,34,35], and scanning electron microscopy in another [36]. Distinct criteria were employed for microscopy evaluation in each study. It is worth noting that the findings of a significant number of studies suggested that the values associated with zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement exceeded those of the other cement types. A comprehensive summary of studies addressing microleakage can be found in Table 2.

3.3. NMA Synthesis

The network meta-analysis encompassed the evaluation of both compressive strength (measured in megapascals) and microleakage. The mean intervention and comparative values for compressive strength and microleakage are presented in Table S3. Throughout all networks, the guiding principles of coherency, transitivity, and consistency were maintained. Figure 2 provides visual insight into the NMA maps detailing the investigation of the efficacy of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements in comparison with that of modified glass ionomer cements. The thickness of the lines connecting interventions reflects the number of studies within each connection.
More in-depth information regarding the influence of compressive strength and microleakage on each NMA, alongside direct and indirect comparisons, is available in Table S3 and Figure S1. Comprehensive matrices of results are provided in Table 3 and Table 4, while Table S4 ranks various materials based on compressive strength and microleakage.

3.3.1. Compressive Strength

In the forest plots presented here, values situated to the left of the vertical line “0” signify lower values than those of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement, while values associated with cements positioned to the right of the line (compomer, giomer) are higher than those of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement, which is a desirable outcome. The values attributed to cements such as amalgomer CR, zirconomer, zirconomer-improved, silver-reinforced GIC, and glass hybrid cements align at a comparable level (Figure 3A).
Funnel plots were employed to assess the presence of publication bias in studies comparing the compressive strength of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements (zirconomer, zirconomer-improved) with that of modified glass ionomer cements (high-viscosity glass ionomer cements—ketac molar, type IX, type IX extra, giomer, compomer; silver-reinforced glass ionomer cements—miracle mix, Xtracem-S, resin-modified glass ionomer cement; glass hybrid—equia forte; glass carbomer—glassfill, amalgomer CR, nano-ionomer). The calculated p-value for the Begg–Mazumdar test was 0.0381, indicating evidence of potential publication bias (Figure 4A). In addition, Figure S2 illustrates both direct and indirect comparisons of compressive strength.

3.3.2. Microleakage

In forest plot presented here, cement values to the left of the vertical line at “0” (nano-ionomer, RMGIC, high-viscosity GIC) are lower, which is desirable. Conversely, the values of cements positioned to the right of the vertical line (glass hybrid, silver-reinforced GIC, giomer, zirconomer-improved, and glass carbomer) are higher and considered undesirable (Figure 3B). Figure S2B illustrates direct and indirect comparisons for microleakage. A funnel plot highlights the presence of potential publication bias in studies comparing the microleakage of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements (zirconomer, zirconomer-improved) with that of modified glass ionomer cements (high-viscosity glass ionomer cements—ketac molar, type IX, type IX extra, giomer, compomer; silver-reinforced glass ionomer cements—miracle mix, Xtracem-S, resin-modified glass ionomer cement; glass hybrid—equia forte; glass carbomer—glassfill, Amalgomer CR, nano-ionomer). The calculated p-value for the Begg–Mazumdar test was 0.0011 (Figure 4B). In Figure S3A, for compressive strength, the field colors range from deep red (indicating substantial inconsistency) to blue (indicating that evidence from this design supports evidence in the row). Figure S3B indicates that grey boxes signify the importance of a treatment comparison for estimating another treatment comparison for microleakage. A common finding is that boxes are prominent in the heatmap’s diagonal axis, implying the utilization of direct evidence. The colored backgrounds indicate inconsistent design in a row, attributed to the design in a column.

3.4. Assessment of Risk of Bias

A comprehensive risk of bias assessment was carried out for all the studies included in the analysis. Out of these, thirteen studies [21,22,23,25,26,27,28,30,32,33,34,35,36] were found to have a moderate risk of bias, while two studies [24,31] were identified as having a high risk of bias. In contrast, only one study [29] showed a low risk of bias. None of the studies reported sample size calculations or the blinding of operators. Conversely, all the studies indicated similarity of treatment groups at baseline, standardization of procedures, outcome measurement, appropriate statistical analysis usage, and reporting of results for all samples. Furthermore, three studies [29,30,34] mentioned that the same operator treated all the samples, and only two studies [29,32] clarified the blinding of outcome assessors. Table S5 provides a summary of the quality assessment for individual studies.

4. Discussion

In the following, we will discuss our main findings revealed by this extensive meta-analysis. The central aim is to investigate the characteristics of various glass ionomer cements, specifically focusing on their clinically significant aspects such as compressive strength and microleakage. Through this analysis, we gain valuable insights into the nuanced properties of these cements, challenging the notion that newer variants invariably outperform their predecessors. Advancements in adhesive restorative materials have enabled smaller cavity preparations to preserve more tooth structure [37]. Among the assortment of cements scrutinized, two varieties, compomer and giomer, emerge as standout contenders boasting superior strength characteristics [38,39]. This strength superiority can be attributed to inherent factors—giomer’s pre-reacted components and compomer’s resin constituents—both contributing to their robustness in resisting mechanical forces. Additionally, the presence of a resin element enhances the cement’s early setting, leading to reduced instances of microleakage compared to other counterparts. Before we proceed to conduct a thorough comparison of these attributes, it is crucial to develop a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary trajectory of the composition of each type of cement. Exploring the distinct compositions that underlie these various cements will enable readers to better comprehend the comparative attributes and draw more meaningful conclusions.
Glass ionomer cements continue to evolve, addressing previous challenges. One approach involves incorporating silver alloy particles into ionomer glass portions and fusing silver powder particles with glass to create a metal-modified glass ionomer cement. Other variations, such as “hybrid ionomers” and “resin-modified glass ionomer cements”, use resin and monomer systems, enhancing aesthetics and clinical performance [2,40,41]. New dental cements have emerged, including highly viscous glass ionomers with increased glass filler particles for higher strength [42,43]. Compomers, combining glass ionomers and resin composites, demonstrate improved mechanical properties but still lag behind resin-based composites [44,45]. Giomers, resin ionomers with pre-reacted glass fillers, offer strength and fluoride release [46]. However, properties of glass carbomer, glass hybrid, and amalgomer CR remain inferior to those of recently introduced GICs and resin-based GICs [47].
Zirconomer and zirconomer-improved cements, as well as zirconia-reinforced glass ionomers, possess the mechanical strength of amalgam restorations and fluoride leaching properties [48]. Improved mechanical properties are attributed to added zirconium fillers [49,50]. Controlled micro-ionization results in uniform particle sizes, enhancing final strength and clinical durability [12,43,48,51]. Predicting clinical longevity requires testing compressive strength. Anterior teeth require pleasing aesthetics, while posterior restorations demand mechanical resilience [52,53,54]. Lower-strength cements may lead to restoration failure [55,56,57,58]. Prabhakar et al. found silver-reinforced glass ionomer cement’s compression strength superior to that of conventional glass ionomer due to silver particles promoting gelation [59]. The results of this study are per many other studies [60,61,62,63,64,65,66]. Chalissery et al. and Dheeraj et al. offer differing conclusions. Zirconomer’s higher compressive strength and adequate fluoride release make it valuable for small to medium cavities and high-risk patients [28,67,68].Reduced microleakage values are crucial to prevent saliva and microorganism entry [69,70,71]. If the restoration fails to adapt closely to the tooth structure, it allows entry of saliva and microorganisms, which play a role in secondary disease initiation and progression [69,71,72]. Hence, lower microleakage values are needed in a restorative material [73,74,75,76], and marginal microleakage should be evaluated for any restorative material as it directly translates to the success or failure of the restorations [73,74,75,76]. Microleakage testing methods include dye penetration and various techniques [77,78,79,80,81,82,83]. Baghdadi et al. [84] and Albeshti et al. [12] emphasize microleakage’s impact.
Higher microleakage values in zirconomer might result from zirconia filler particles affecting chelation reactions [12,85]. Despite this, no restorative material entirely prevents microleakage [29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36]. Understanding clinical behavior based on in vitro and in vivo studies is crucial for successful restorations [12,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,86,87]. Factors such as compressive strength and microleakage are pivotal in material selection. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to explore contemporary material properties, particularly those of zirconomer. However, further in vivo studies and clinical trials are essential to solidify findings from in vitro studies.
Study limitations include unclear effects of different brands and sample sizes on compressive strength and microleakage values. While cement classes are likely have similar compositions, minor filler particle variations exist. Microleakage outcomes vary due to different dyes and microscopy methods, introducing potential heterogeneity.

5. Conclusions

From our network meta-analysis results, we have ascertained that zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement has lower compressive strength than compomer and giomer cements. However, there are no significant differences when compared with other modified cements. The microleakage values of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements are similar to those of other cements, with no notable distinctions. Consequently, the properties of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cements are on par with those of the comparative compounds in our review. This type of cement holds potential as a practical substitute for modified glass ionomer cements, owing to its pleasing aesthetics and significant clinical benefits. Clinicians should familiarize themselves with available restorative materials and understand their pros and cons. It iss essential to note that further in vivo studies are necessary to confirm the initial observations from in vitro studies.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/dj11090211/s1, Figure S1: Graphical plots of direct and indirect comparisons for: (A) Compressive Strength and (B) Microleakage; Figure S2: Comparisons of both direct and indirect measures: (A) Compressive Strength and (B) Microleakage; Figure S3: Heat map illustrating: (A) Compressive Strength and (B) Microleakage; Table S1: Search approach; Table S2: Generic name, brand name, and composition of the cement; Table S3: Incorporation of individual study data (intervention and comparison means) for Compressive Strength and Microleakage in the Network Meta-Analysis; Table S4: Ranking of materials based on: (A) Compressive Strength and (B) Microleakage; Table S5: Evaluation of Bias Risk and Individual Study Quality using JBI Critical Appraisal Tools, with Adjustments following the Checklist for Reporting In vitro Studies (CRIS Guidelines).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.M. and S.S.S.; methodology, V.M.; software, R.S.; validation, R.S., V.M. and A.M.; formal analysis, R.S.; investigation, V.M.; resources, S.M.; data curation, V.M.; writing—original draft preparation, S.M.; writing—review and editing, V.M.; visualization, S.S.S.; supervision, R.S.; project administration, A.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Zhang, S.; Li, J.; Li, X.; Ying, Y.; Yuan, J.; Chen, K.; Deng, S.; Wang, Q. Association of Polymicrobial Interactions with Dental Caries Development and Prevention. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1162380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Fejerskov, O.; Bente, N.; Edwina, K. (Eds.) Dental Caries: The Disease and Its Clinical Management, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2015; Volume 2, p. 235. [Google Scholar]
  3. Figundio, N.; Lopes, P.; Tedesco, T.K.; Fernandes, J.C.H.; Fernandes, G.V.O.; Mello-Moura, A.C.V. Deep Carious Lesions Management with Stepwise, Selective, or Non-Selective Removal in Permanent Dentition: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials. Healthcare 2023, 11, 2338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Pav, C.; Orlans, M.C.; O’toole, S.; Domejean, S.; Movahedi, S.; Banerjee, A. Restorative intervention thresholds and treatment decisions of general dental practitioners in London. Br. Dent. J. 2019, 227, 727–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Nicholson, J.W.; Sidhu, S.K.; Czarnecka, B. Fluoride exchange by glass-ionomer dental cements and its clinical effects: A review. Biomater Investig Dent. 2023, 10, 2244982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Goenka, S.; Balu, R.; Kumar, T.S. Effects of nanocrystalline calcium deficient hydroxyapatite incorporation in glass ionomer cements. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2012, 7, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Wilson, A.D.; Kent, B.E. The glass-ionomer cement, a new translucent dental filling material. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 1971, 21, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Nagaraja, U.P.; Kishore, G. Glass ionomer cement: The different generations. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs 2005, 18, 158–165. [Google Scholar]
  9. Sidhu, S.K. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust. Dent. J. 2011, 56, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Mount, G.J. Color Atlas of Glass Ionomer Cement, 2nd ed.; Martin Dunitz: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  11. Food and Drug Administration. Dental Devices: Classification of Dental Amalgam, Reclassification of Dental Mercury, Designation of Special Controls for Dental Amalgam, Mercury, and Amalgam Alloy. Final Rule; Federal Register 74, No. 148; Food and Drug Administration, HHS: Silver Spring, MD, USA, 2009.
  12. Albeshti, R.; Shahid, S. Evaluation of Microleakage in Zirconomer®: A Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement. Acta. Stomatol. Croat. 2018, 52, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Makanjuola, J.; Deb, S. Chemically activated glass-ionomer cements as bioactive materials in dentistry: A review. Prosthesis 2023, 5, 327–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nicholson, J.W.; Sidhu, S.K.; Czarnecka, B. Enhancing the mechanical properties of glass-ionomer dental cements: A review. Materials 2020, 13, 2510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Alvarenga, F.A.D.S.U.; Andrade, M.F.D.U.; Pinelli, C.; Rastelli, A.; Victorino, K.R.U.; Loffredo, L.D.C.U.M. Accuracy of digital images in the detection of marginal microleakage: An in vitro study. J. Adhes. Dent. 2012, 14, 335–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Higgins, J.P.T.; Altman, D.G.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.D.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.F.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011, 343, d5928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Hutton, B.; Salanti, G.; Caldwell, D.M.; Chaimani, A.; Schmid, C.H.; Cameron, C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Straus, S.; Thorlund, K.; Jansen, J.P.; et al. The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-Analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations. Ann. Intern. Med. 2015, 162, 777–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Stillwell, S.B.; Fineout-Overholt, E.; Melnyk, B.M.; Williamson, K.M. Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step: Asking the Clinical Question: A Key Step in Evidence-Based Practice. AJN Am. J. Nurs. 2010, 110, 58–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Analytical Cross Sectional Studies; The Joanna Briggs Institute: North Adelaide, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  20. Krithikadatta, J.; Gopikrishna, V.; Datta, M. CRIS Guidelines (Checklist for Reporting In-Vitro Studies): A Concept Note on the Need for Standardized Guidelines for Improving Quality and Transparency in Reporting in-Vitro Studies in Experimental Dental Research. J. Conserv. Dent. 2014, 17, 301–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Walia, R.; Jasuja, P.; Verma, K.G.; Juneja, S.; Mathur, A.; Ahuja, L. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage and Compressive Strength of Ketac Molar, Giomer, Zirconomer, and Ceram-x: An in Vitro Study. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2016, 34, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Bhatia, H.P.; Singh, S.; Sood, S.; Sharma, N. A comparative evaluation of sorption, solubility, and compressive strength of three different glass ionomer cements in artificial saliva: An in vitro study. Int. J. Clin. Pediatr. Dent. 2017, 10, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Kumar, A.; Raj, A.; Singh, D.K.; Donthagani, S.; Kumar, M.; Ramesh, K. A New Zinc Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement: A Boon in Dentistry. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2021, 13, S272–S275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Shetty, C.; Sadananda, V.; Hegde, M.; Lagisetti, A.; Shetty, A.; Mathew, T.; Shetty, S. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength of Ketac Molar, Zirconomer, and Zirconomer Improved. Sch. J. Dent. Sci. 2017, 4, 259–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Patel, A.; Dalal, D.; Lakade, L.; Shah, P.; Caudhary, S.; Lodaya, R.; Vidyapeeth, B. Comparative evaluation of compressive strength and diametral tensile strength of zirconomer, ketac molar and Type IX GIC-An In-Vitro Study. J. Int. Soc. Prev. Community Dent. 2018, 10, 70091–70094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Patil, K.M.; Hambire, U.V. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive, Flexural Strength and Micro Hardness of Different Dental Materials. Int. J. Sci. Res. Dev. 2016, 4, 444–448. [Google Scholar]
  27. Dhivya, S. In Vitro Comparative study of Sorption, Solubility and Compressive Strength of Three Modified Glass Ionomer Cements. Master’s Thesis, Vivekanandha Dental College for Women, Tiruchengode, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  28. Uğurlu, M. How Do the Surface Coating and One-Year Water Aging Affect the Properties of Fluoride-Releasing Restorative Materials? Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2020, 23, 720–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Asafarlal, S. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage, Surface Roughness and Hardness of Three Glass Ionomer Cements–Zirconomer, Fujii IX Extra GC and Ketac Molar: An In Vitro Study. Dent. Health Curr. Res. 2017, 3, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ranadheer, E.; Shah, U.D.; Neelakantappa, K.K.; Fernandes, S. Comparative analysis of microleakage of zirconia-infused glass ionomer cement with miracle mix and amalgam: An In Vitro study. Cureus 2018, 10, e3672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Salman, K.M.; Naik, S.B.; Kumar, N.K.; Merwade, S.; Brigit, B.; Jalan, R. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class V cavities restored with giomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, zirconomer and nano-ionomer: An in vitro study. J. Int. Clin. Dent. Res. Organ. 2019, 11, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Mahmoud, N.; Niazy, M.; Elyasaky, M. Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Reinforced Glass Ionomer Restorations and Influence of Heat Application on Their Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage. Al-Azhar Dent. J. Girls 2020, 7, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Sharafeddin, F.; Bakhtiarvand, N.A.; Jowkar, Z. Evaluation of the Effect of Home Bleaching Gel on Microleakage of Different Glass Ionomers Reinforced with Micro-Hydroxyapatite. J. Conserv. Dent. 2019, 22, 64–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Meral, E.; Baseren, N. Shear bond strength and microleakage of novel glass-ionomer cements: An in vitro study. Niger. J. Clin. Pr. 2019, 22, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ashok, L. A Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Around Class V Cavities Restored with Five Different Tooth Coloured Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Sree Mookambika Institute of Denal Sciences, Kulasekharam, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  36. Kaladevi, M. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Three Different Glass Ionomer Cements in Class V Cavity: An In Vitro Study. Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Government Dental College and Hospital, Chennai, India, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  37. Anusavice, K.J.; Phillips, R.W.; Shen, C.; Rawls, H.R. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials, 18th ed.; Elsevier/Saunders: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  38. Simmons, J.J. Silver–alloy powder and glass ionomer cement. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 1990, 120, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. McLean, J.W.; Gasser, O. Glass-cermet cements. Quintessence Int. 1985, 16, 333–343. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  40. McCabe, J.F. Resin-modified glass-ionomers. Biomaterials 1998, 19, 521–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Nicholson, J.W.; Beata, C. The biocompatibility of resin-modified glass-ionomer cements for dentistry. Dent Mater. 2008, 4, 1702–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Sidhu, S.K. Clinical evaluations of resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Dent. Mater. 2010, 26, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Amaral, R.; Özcan, M.; Valandro, L.F.; Balducci, I.; Bottino, M.A. Effect of Conditioning Methods on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Phosphate Monomer-Based Cement on Zirconia Ceramic in Dry and Aged Conditions. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2008, 85, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Croll, T.P.; Nicholson, J.W. Glass ionomer cements in pediatric dentistry: Review of the literature. Pediatr. Dent. 2002, 24, 423–429. [Google Scholar]
  45. Meyer, J.M.; Cattani-Lorente, M.A.; Dupuis, V. Compomers: Between glass-ionomer cements and composites. Biomaterials 1998, 19, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Itota, T.; Carrick, T.E.; Yoshiyama, M.; McCabe, J.F. Fluoride Release and Recharge in Giomer, Compomer and Resin Composite. Dent. Mater. 2004, 20, 789–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Ulrike, M.; Ilie, N. Effect of gloss and heat on the mechanical behaviour of a glass carbomer cement. J. Dent. 2013, 41, 223–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Uday, K.; Salam, A. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with mod cavities restored with Zirconomer: An in vitro comparative study. Int. J. Appl. Dent. Sci. 2016, 2, 77–80. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nanavati, K.; Katge, F.; Chimata, V.K.; Pradhan, D.; Kamble, A.; Patil, D. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Bioactive Restorative Material, Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement to the Dentinal Surface of Primary Molars: An in vitro Study. J. Dent. 2021, 4, 260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Safy, R.K.; Elmohsen, H.A. Assessment of the Fracture Resistance of Novel Zirconia Reinforced Glass Ionomer in Comparison to Nano Hybrid Resin Composite Restorations. Egypt. Dent. J. 2019, 65, 3735–3744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Khamverdi, Z.; Moshiri, Z. Zirconia: An up-to-date literature review. Avicenna J. Dent. Res. 2012, 4, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  52. Saygili, G.; Mahmali, S.M. Comparative study of the physical properties of core materials. J. Periodontics Restor. Dent. 2002, 22, 355–363. [Google Scholar]
  53. Summitt, J.B.; Robbins, J.W.; Hilton, T.J.; Schwartz, R.S. Bonding to Enamel and Dentin. Fundamentals of Operative Dentistry, 3rd ed.; Quintessence Publishing Co., Inc.: Berlin, Germany, 2006; Volume 8, pp. 183–260. [Google Scholar]
  54. Van Noort, R.; Barbour, M.E. Introduction to Dental Materials; Elsevier Science Health Science div.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sakaguchi, R.L.; Powers, J.M. Craig’s Restorative Dental Materials, 13th ed.; Elsevier Mosby: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012; pp. 51–96. [Google Scholar]
  56. Cho, G.C.; Kaneko, L.M.; Donovan, T.E.; White, S.N. Diametral and Compressive Strength of Dental Core Materials. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1999, 82, 272–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Pereira, L.C.; Nunes, M.C.P.; Dibb, R.G.P.; Powers, J.M.; Roulet, J.-F.; Navarro, M.F. de L. Mechanical Properties and Bond Strength of Glass-Ionomer Cements. J. Adhes. Dent. 2002, 4, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Nicholson, J.; Beata, C. Materials for the Direct Restoration of Teeth, 1st ed.; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2016; pp. 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  59. Prabhakar, A.R.; Thejokrishna, P.; Kurthukoti, A.J. A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth. J. Indian Soc. Pedod. Prev. Dent. 2006, 24, 122–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Cattani-Lorente, M.A.; Godin, C.; Meyer, J.M. Early strength of glass ionomer cements. Dent. Mater. 1993, 9, 57–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Negm, M.M.; Beech, D.R.; Grant, A.A. An evaluation of mechanical and adhesive properties of polycarboxylate and glass ionomer cements. J. Oral Rehabil. 1982, 9, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Anstice, H.M.; Nicholson, J.W.; McCabe, J.F. The effect of using layered specimens for determination of the compressive strength of glass-ionomer cements. J. Dent. Res. 1992, 71, 1871–1874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chalissery, V.P.; Nikhil, M.; Mohammed, A.; Abdulaziz, M.A.; Elna, P.C.; Shilpa, H.B.; Sukumaran, A. Study of the mechanical properties of the novel zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement. J. Contemp Dent. Pract. 2016, 17, 394–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Dheeraj, M.; Johar, S.; Jandial, T.; Sahi, H.; Verma, S. Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength and Diametral Tensile Strength of Zirconomer with GIC and Amalgam. J. Med. Dent. Sci. 2019, 7, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mohanty, S.; Ramesh, S. Fracture resistance of three posterior restorative materials: A preliminary in vitro study. J. Adv. Pharm. Educ. Res. 2017, 7, 291–294. [Google Scholar]
  66. Ruengrungsom, C. Evaluation of Physical/Mechanical Properties, Ion Release, and Rechargeable Efficacy of Contemporary Ion-leaching Restorative Materials. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  67. Xu, X.; John, O.B. Compressive strength, fluoride release and recharge of fluoride-releasing materials. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 2451–2461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tiwari, S.; Mallikarjuna, K.; Deepak, B.; Shilpi, G.; Sudhanshu, S.; Saurabh, S.; Aishwarya, S.; Manoj, G. Antibacterial activity and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement, compomer and zirconia reinforced glass-ionomer cement. J. Clin. Diagn. Res. 2016, 10, ZC90–ZC93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Castro, A.; Robert, E.F. Microleakage of a new improved glass ionomer restorative material in primary and permanent teeth. Pediatr. Dent 2002, 24, 23–28. [Google Scholar]
  70. Lutz, F.; Krejci, I.; Barbakow, F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent. Mater. 1991, 7, 107–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kidd, E.A.M. Microleakage: A review. J. Dent. 1976, 4, 199–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Brännström, M.; Vojinović, O. Response of the dental pulp to invasion of bacteria around three filling materials. ASDC J. Dent. Child. 1976, 43, 83–89. [Google Scholar]
  73. Oskoee, S.S.; Oskoee, P.A.; Navimipour, E.J.; Ajami, A.A.; Azar, F.P.; Rikhtegaran, S.; Amini, M. Comparison of the Effect of Nd: YAG and Diode Lasers and Photodynamic Therapy on Microleakage of Class V Composite Resin Restorations. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2013, 7, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vanishree, H.S.; Shanthala, B.M.; Bobby, W. The comparative evaluation of fracture resistance and microleakage in bonded amalgam, amalgam, and composite resins in primary molars. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2015, 26, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Gupta, S.K.; Gupta, J.; Saraswathi, V.; Ballal, V.; Acharya, S.R. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class V cavities using various glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study. J. Interdiscip. Dent. 2012, 2, 164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Fatima, N.; Mohiuddin, S.; Iqbal, W. Effect on Micro-Leakage of Composite Resoration with Two Different Adhesives after Bleaching. Smile Dent. J. 2015, 10, 28–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Karagenç, B.; Gençoǧlu, N.; Ersoy, M.; Cansever, G.; Külekçi, G. A comparison of four different microleakage tests for assessment of leakage of root canal fillings. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 102, 110–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Alani, A.H.; Toh, C.G. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: A review. Oper. Dent. 1997, 22, 173–185. [Google Scholar]
  79. Jacobsen, P.H.; Fraunhofer, J.A.V. Assessment of microleakage using a conductimetric technique. J. Dent. Res. 1975, 54, 41–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Going, R.E.; Howard, M.M.; Stanley, G.P. Quantitative method for studying microleakage in vivo and in vitro. J. Dent. Res. 1968, 47, 1128–1132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gogna, R.; Jagadis, S.; Shashikal, K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J. Conserv. Dent. 2011, 14, 128–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hilton, T.J. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 2. Am. J. Dent. 2002, 15, 279–289. [Google Scholar]
  83. Taylor, M.; Lynch, E. Microleakage. J. Dent. 1992, 20, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Baghdadi, Z.D. Microleakage of a single-bottle adhesive system with 3 restorative materials: In vitro study and clinical considerations. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2003, 24, 755–758. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  85. Baig, M.S.; Garry, J.P.F. Conventional glass-ionomer materials: A review of the developments in glass powder, polyacid liquid and the strategies of reinforcement. J. Dent. 2015, 43, 897–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Barbhai, S.; Shetty, R.; Joshi, P.; Mehta, V.; Mathur, A.; Sharma, T.; Chakraborty, D.; Porwal, P.; Meto, A.; Wahjuningrum, D.A.; et al. Evaluation of Root Anatomy and Canal Configuration of Human Permanent Maxillary First Molar Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 10160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Souza, P.P.; Aranha, A.M.; Hebling, J.; Giro, E.M.; de Souza Costa, C.A. In vitro cytotoxicity and in vivo biocompatibility of contemporary resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Dent. Mater. 2006, 22, 838–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Dentistry 11 00211 g001
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart summarizing the process of article selection (n, number of studies).
Figure 1. PRISMA flowchart summarizing the process of article selection (n, number of studies).
Dentistry 11 00211 g001
Dentistry 11 00211 g002
Figure 2. Network meta-analysis of eligible comparisons for (A) compressive strength and (B) microleakage. The thickness of lines between the interventions relates to the number of studies for that comparison. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Figure 2. Network meta-analysis of eligible comparisons for (A) compressive strength and (B) microleakage. The thickness of lines between the interventions relates to the number of studies for that comparison. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Dentistry 11 00211 g002
Dentistry 11 00211 g003
Figure 3. Forest plots for (A) compressive strength (B) microleakage. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Figure 3. Forest plots for (A) compressive strength (B) microleakage. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Dentistry 11 00211 g003
Dentistry 11 00211 g004
Figure 4. Funnel plots for (A) compressive strength and (B) microleakage. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Figure 4. Funnel plots for (A) compressive strength and (B) microleakage. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Dentistry 11 00211 g004
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included regarding compressive strength.
Table 1. Characteristics of the studies included regarding compressive strength.
Author/YearStudy DesignProperty TestedPopulationInterventionComparativeSample SizeDimensions of Specimen
Walia R/2016
[21]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerHigh-viscosity GIC155 mm × 6 mm
Giomer5 mm × 6 mm
Bhatia H/2017
[22]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerHigh-viscosity GIC154 mm × 6 mm
Silver-reinforced GIC4 mm × 6 mm
Canturk K/2020
[23]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomer-improvedRMGIC104 mm × 6 mm
Compomer4 mm × 6 mm
Glass hybrid4 mm × 6 mm
Giomer4 mm × 6 mm
Amalgomer CR4 mm × 6 mm
Shetty C/2017
[24]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerHigh-viscosity GIC103 mm × 6 mm
Zirconomer-improved3 mm × 6 mm
Patel A/2018
[25]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerHigh-viscosity GIC106 mm × 12 mm
Patil K/2016
[26]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerGiomer55 mm × 5 mm
High-viscosity GIC5 mm × 5 mm
Compomer5 mm × 5 mm
S Dhivya/2017-2020
[27]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomer-improvedGlass Hybrid154 mm × 6 mm
RMGIC4 mm × 6 mm
Uğurlu M/2020
[28]		Comparative cross-sectional studyCompressive strengthCylindrical cement specimensZirconomerGlass Carbomer104 mm × 6 mm
Amalgomer CR4 mm × 6 mm
High-viscosity GIC4 mm × 6 mm
Giomer4 mm × 6 mm
GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies included in microleakage analysis.
Table 2. Characteristics of the studies included in microleakage analysis.
Author/YearStudy DesignProperty TestedPopulationInterventionComparativeSample SizeTest Type UsedDye UsedMicroscopy
Asafarlal S/2017
[29]		In vitro studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomerHigh viscosity GIC15Dye absorbanceMethylene blueSpectrophotometry
Ranadheer E/2018
[30]		In vitro studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomerSilver reinforced GIC10Dye penetrationMethylene blueStereomicroscopy
Mohammed Salman K/2019
[31]		In vitro studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomer-improvedGiomer15Dye penetrationMethylene blueStereomicroscopy
RMGIC
Nano ionomer
Mahmoud N/2020
[32]		In vitro studyMicroleakageMolar teethZirconomer-improvedGlass hybrid10Dye penetrationMethylene blueStereomicroscopy
RMGIC
Sharafeddin F/2019
[33]		In vitro studyMicroleakageMolar teethZirconomerRMGIC5Dye penetrationBasic fuchsineStereomicroscopy
Meral E/2019
[34]		In vitro studyMicroleakageMolar teethZirconomerGlass hybrid8Dye penetrationBasic fuchsineStereomicroscopy
Glass Carbomer
Ashok L/2017–2020
[35]		In vitro studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomer-improvedGiomer8Dye penetrationSilver nitrateStereomicroscopy
Kaladevi M/2017–2020
[36]		In vitro studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomer-improvedHigh viscosity GIC10Dye PenetrationSilver paintSEM
Silver reinforced GIC
Walia R/2016
[21]		Comparative cross-sectional studyMicroleakagePremolar teethZirconomerHigh viscosity GIC15Dye penetrationMethylene blueStereomicroscopy
GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement; SEM: scanning electron microscopy.
Table 3. Matrix of results from the NMA for compressive strength.
Table 3. Matrix of results from the NMA for compressive strength.
Comparison Compound
Amalgomer CR−64.73 (−119.78; −9.68)−65.85 (−103.93; −27.78)10.76 (−43.66; 65.18)−6.59 (−59.73; 46.55)−12.87 (−67.60; 41.86)−21.63 (−74.95; 31.69) 1.03 (−53.59; 55.65)−3.44 (−56.90; 50.02)
−119.76 (−161.84; −77.68)Compomer *75.58 (34.52; 116.64) 58.14 (2.86; 113.42)161.90 (104.04; 219.76)43.10 (−12.35; 98.55) 186.20 (130.41; 241.99)61.29 (5.71; 116.87)
−56.20 (−91.20; −21.19)63.56 (26.58; 100.55)Giomer *117.54 (62.97; 172.11)20.88 (−32.36; 74.12)79.69 ( 47.48; 111.89)5.84 (−47.57; 59.25) 66.16 (34.28; 98.03)24.03 (−29.52; 77.58)
32.24 (−17.09; 81.58)152.00 (97.52; 206.48)88.44 (41.84; 135.04)Glass Carbomer −23.63 (−78.20; 30.94). −9.73 (−64.19; 44.73)
Intervention compound−26.26 (−68.86; 16.34)93.49 (49.38; 137.61)29.93 (−10.19; 70.05)−58.51 (−115.14; −1.87)Glass hybrid 4.31 (−33.17; 41.78) −8.20 (−45.71; 29.31)
24.60 (−11.41; 60.62)144.36 (106.83; 181.89)80.80 (53.13; 108.47)−7.64 (−53.68; 38.40)50.87 (9.15; 92.58)High viscosity GIC −46.90 (−99.78; 5.98)−25.48 (−47.29; −3.67)−40.70 (−93.11; 11.71)
−21.89 (−64.58; 20.79)97.86 (53.67; 142.06)34.30 (−5.91; 74.51)−54.14 (−110.83; 2.55)4.37 (−33.10; 41.84)−46.50 (−88.29; −4.71)RMGIC −12.65 (−50.23; 24.92)
−6.69 (−63.81; 50.43)113.07 (55.03; 171.11)49.51 (−2.74; 101.76)−38.93 (−102.86; 24.99)19.57 (−41.29; 80.44)−31.29 (−78.29; 15.71)15.21 (−45.72; 76.13)Silver reinforced GIC−9.44 (−62.18; 43.30).
−0.68 (−36.59; 35.22)119.07 (81.79; 156.35)55.51 (28.03; 82.99)−32.93 (−78.90; 13.05)25.58 (−16.02; 67.18)−25.29 (−47.09; −3.48)21.21 (−20.47; 62.89)6.00 ( −40.97; 52.98)Zirconomer19.69 (−32.73; 72.11)
−25.33 (−63.87; 13.21)94.43 (54.31; 134.55)30.87 (−3.72; 65.45)−57.57 (−109.84; −5.31)0.93 (−34.92; 36.79)−49.93 (−83.98; −15.89)−3.43 (−39.36; 32.49)−18.64 (−74.55; 37.26)−24.64 (−58.59; 9.30)Zirconomer-improved
The numerical values within the cells represent the values of the intervention compound in relation to a specific comparison compound. Each row and column corresponds to the difference in compressive strength values, measured in megapascals (MPa). The values situated to the left or below indicate indirect estimates, while those positioned to the right or above signify direct estimates from the conducted studies. For example, the compressive strength value of Amalgomer CR is 119.76 MPa lower than that of compomer. Similarly, the compressive strength value of zirconomer is 24.64 MPa less than that of zirconomer-improved. In instances where no direct study exists comparing two specific compounds (denoted by values on the right or in cells above), these cells have been left empty. Notably, zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement exhibits significantly lower compressive strength than compomer and giomer. * GIC—glass ionomer cement; RMGIC—resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR—ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Table 4. Matrix of results from the NMA for microleakage.
Table 4. Matrix of results from the NMA for microleakage.
Comparison Compound
Giomer 0.82 (−0.66; 2.30)1.04 (−0.43; 2.50)0.77 (−0.72; 2.25) 0.53 (−0.98; 2.04)−0.06 (−1.12; 1.01)
−0.89 (−3.06; 1.27)Glass Carbomer1.37 (−0.73; 3.47) 1.42 (−0.73; 3.57)
0.47 (−1.02; 1.96)1.36 (−0.61; 3.33)Glass hybrid 0.16 (−1.57; 1.90) 0.05 (−2.05; 2.15)−0.40 (−2.13; 1.33)
0.69 (−0.67; 2.05)1.58 (−0.75; 3.92)0.22 (−1.59; 2.03)High viscosity GIC 10.22 (4.36; 16.07)−0.66 ( −2.10; 0.79)0.89 (−6.28; 8.06)
Intervention compound0.93 (−0.41; 2.26)1.82 (−0.58; 4.22)0.46 (−1.31; 2.23)0.24 (−1.59; 2.06)Nano ionomer−0.27 (−1.75; 1.21) −0.80 (−2.27; 0.67)
0.72 (−0.38; 1.81)1.61 (−0.54; 3.76)0.25 (−1.14; 1.63)0.03 (−1.55; 1.61)−0.21 (−1.57; 1.15)RMGIC −0.65 (−2.60; 1.30)−0.54 (−1.65; 0.56)
0.40 (−1.41; 2.22)1.30 (−1.15; 3.74)−0.06 (−2.08; 1.96)−0.28 (−2.19; 1.62)−0.52 (−2.65; 1.61)−0.31 (−2.18; 1.55)Silver reinforced GIC0.90 (−0.58; 2.38)−9.32 (−16.45; −2.20)
0.54 (−0.63; 1.71)1.43 (−0.56; 3.42)0.07 (−1.38; 1.52)−0.15 (−1.49; 1.18)−0.39 (−2.01; 1.23)−0.18 (−1.42; 1.06)0.13 (−1.30; 1.56)Zirconomer
−0.04 (−1.01; 0.93)0.85 (−1.32; 3.02)−0.51 (−1.91; 0.90)−0.73 (−2.29; 0.83)−0.97 (−2.29; 0.35)−0.76 (−1.78; 0.26)−0.45 (−2.34; 1.45)−0.58 (−1.88; 0.72)Zirconomer-improved
The numerical values within the cells represent the values of the intervention compound in relation to a specific comparison compound. Each row and column corresponds to the difference in mean microleakage values. The values situated to the left or below indicate indirect estimates, while those positioned to the right or above signify direct estimates from the conducted studies. For instance, the mean microleakage value of giomer is 0.89 times lower than that of glass carbomer. Where no direct study exists comparing two specific compounds (denoted by values on the right or in cells above), these cells have been left empty. GIC: glass ionomer cement; RMGIC: resin-modified glass ionomer cement; Amalgomer CR: ceramic-reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Manisha, S.; Shetty, S.S.; Mehta, V.; SA, R.; Meto, A. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Dent. J. 2023, 11, 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090211

AMA Style

Manisha S, Shetty SS, Mehta V, SA R, Meto A. A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Dentistry Journal. 2023; 11(9):211. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090211

Chicago/Turabian Style

Manisha, Srikurmam, Soumya S Shetty, Vini Mehta, Rizwan SA, and Aida Meto. 2023. "A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis" Dentistry Journal 11, no. 9: 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090211

APA Style

Manisha, S., Shetty, S. S., Mehta, V., SA, R., & Meto, A. (2023). A Comprehensive Evaluation of Zirconia-Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement’s Effectiveness in Dental Caries: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. Dentistry Journal, 11(9), 211. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj11090211

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop