Albelasy Et Al-2022-Scientific Reports

www.nature.
com/scientificreports
OPEN Secondary caries and marginal

adaptation of ion‑releasing
versus resin composite
restorations: a systematic review
and meta‑analysis of randomized
clinical trials
Eman H. Albelasy1,2, Hamdi H. Hamama1,3*, Hooi Pin Chew4, Marmar Montaser1 &
Salah H. Mahmoud1,5
This systematic review was aimed to evaluate occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation
in ion-releasing materials versus resin composite. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Open Grey
databases with no date or language restrictions until May 21st, 2021, was conducted. Randomized
clinical trials that compared ion-releasing restorations versus resin composite were included. For
quantitative analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis with risk difference as an effect measure
and a 95% confidence interval was used. Quality of evidence was assessed using The Grading of
Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated
using the Cochran Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies, and 10
studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three follow-up periods (1 year, 18 months–2 years, and
3 years) were evaluated. The overall quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adaptation
outcomes was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both
outcomes between ion-releasing materials and resin composite. The occurrence of secondary caries
was not dependent on the nature of the restorative material. It is more likely a complex process that
involves the same risk factors as primary carious lesions.
Over the last decade, remarkable advances in resin composite formulations have been made to address clinical
challenges. Bulk-placement techniques, new filler formulations, and simplified adhesion protocols have resulted
in a more user-friendly application1,2. However, the clinical problems of technique sensitivity, polymerization
shrinkage, and lack of antibacterial properties remained unchanged3–5 and similarly, the main reasons for its
failure remain to be secondary caries and bulk f ractures1,6.
Secondary caries can be defined as caries lesions at the margins of existing r estorations7 or caries associated
with restorations or sealants (CARS) (secondary caries and caries around restorations are used synonymously in
this review)8,9. The complexity of caries around restorations is related to its multifactorial origin, combining the
pathological pathway of primary carious lesions with the influence of the formulations of different restorative
materials9. It has been reported that thicker biofilms accumulate around resin composite than glass ionomer
restorations10. In vivo plaque studies have also shown that the levels of lactic acid-producing bacteria are sig-
nificantly higher around resin composite restorations than on either amalgam or glass ionomer r estorations11,12.
1
Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Algomhoria Street, Mansoura,
Aldakhlia 35516, Egypt. 2Research Visiting Scholar, Minnesota Dental Research Centre for Biomaterials and
Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 3Restorative Dentistry
Department, Faculty of Dentistry, New-Mansoura University, New‑Mansoura, Egypt. 4Minnesota Dental Research
Centre for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455,
USA. 5Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Horus University, New‑Damietta, Egypt. *email:
hamdy_hosny@mans.edu.eg
Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 1
Vol.:(0123456789)
www.nature.com/scientificreports/
Therefore, fluoride-releasing materials that possess remineralization and/or antibacterial properties have gained
popularity in recent y ears13 with the hope of preventing secondary caries formation.
Conventional glass ionomer cement (GICs) and its evolutions such as: high-viscosity glass ionomer (HV-
GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC), and compomers are the most frequently used fluoride-releasing
restorative materials. An inherent disadvantage of GIC is its low fracture toughness, which limits its clinical
applications to low load-bearing areas such as the buccal and lingual surfaces. Nevertheless, increasing the
powder-liquid ratio, and modifications in its chemical composition have shown to lead to improved physical
properties and prolonged clinical s urvival14,15.
Modified versions of the conventionally set GIC such as HV-GIC were introduced with the hope of extend-
ing the indications of GIC to include load-bearing areas on posterior teeth to provide an alternative for patients
with limited resources16–18. Promising 10-years clinical results have recently emerged for HV-GIC used in class
I and II restorations, where no restoration had to be replaced due to unacceptable clinical wear19. In addition to
HV-GIC, glass hybrid materials such as Equia Forte were introduced in 2015. According to the manufacturer,
these materials are modified with highly reactive glass particles of different sizes to significantly increase their
mechanical properties20,21.
Nonetheless, the clinical indications of GIC and its evolutions in multiple-surface restorations in the stress-
bearing posterior regions of the mouth are still limited due to their poor fracture toughness, tensile strength,
wear resistance, and hardness. A recent systematic review reported that the annual failure rates of approximal
or multi-surface GIC restorations were greater than those of single-surface occlusal restorations22. A solution to
counteract this limitation of GIC is to incorporate resin composite restorations (which have superior mechanical
properties than GIC) with reactive fillers that can protect the tooth against secondary caries23. Up to press date,
there are several new commercially available ion-releasing composites with claimed bioactivity such as ACTIVA™
BioACTIVE-RESTORATIVE™ (Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, MA, USA), Cention N (Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Liechtenstein), and Surefil one (Dentsply Sirona). These materials are relatively recent additions to the
realm of ion-releasing materials, that are claimed by their respective manufacturer, to release sufficient amounts
of ions other than fluoride to promote r emineralization24–26 around restorations. Tiskaya et al. 27, reported sig-
nificant release of Al3+ and C a2+ ions from Cention N and Activa Bioactive in acidic media of pH 4, which in
turn indicate an ability to protect against secondary caries.
Clinical investigations regarding their ability to inhibit caries around restorations are scarce in the current
literature. While in vitro studies have shown that fluoride-releasing restorative materials such as GICs can inhibit
tooth demineralization adjacent to restoration margins28–30, the caries inhibitory effect of these new ion-releasing
materials remains unclear. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis were aimed to answer the follow-
ing question: Is there a difference in the occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing
restorations compared to resin composite?
Materials and methods
The recommendation of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) were
followed in this r eview31,32.
Eligibility criteria and PICO question. The research question was as follows: Is there a difference in the
incidence secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing restorations compared to resin composite?
The following PICO questions were established:
• Population: patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations.

• Intervention: ion-releasing restorations. From here forth, the term ‘ion-releasing’ will be used in this article
to encompass fluoride and all other ion-releasing materials. All GIC derivatives including (RMGIC, HV-GIC,
conventional GIC, and glass hybrid), polyacid-modified composite (compomer), giomer, and any material
stated by the manufacturer to be capable of ion-release will be in the intervention group.
• Comparison: the intervention should be compared with a resin composite restoration applied in conjunction
with any adhesive system.
• Outcomes: caries around restorations and marginal adaptation.
Inclusion criteria.
1. Randomized clinical trials in patients with permanent dentition comparing an ion-releasing material to resin
composite in any form of cavities (Black’s Class I, II, V) and non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs).
2. Parallel or split-mouth studies.
3. A minimum follow-up period of 1 year.
4. Evaluation criteria: FDI criteria and/or USPHS.
5. The investigated materials must be commercially available. Any study investigating discontinued products
was excluded.
Exclusion criteria.
1. Editorial letters, pilot studies, historical reviews, literature reviews, systematic reviews, in vitro studies,
cohort, observational and descriptive studies, such as case reports and case series.
2. Randomized clinical trials were excluded if.
Vol:.(1234567890)
a. Ion-releasing materials were compared to each other with no resin composite restoration as a reference
for comparison.
b. Restorations were done on primary teeth,
c. The follow-up period was less than 1 year.
Information source and search strategy. An electronic search within the following databases (Medline
via PubMed and Scopus) was conducted until May 21st, 2021. Grey literature was searched through the Open
Grey database http://www.opengrey.eu/.
The following keywords were used in the electronic search: “FDI criteria AND randomized clinical trial”,
“modified USPHS criteria AND randomized clinical trials”, “Secondary caries OR caries adjacent to restorations
and randomized clinical trials”, “marginal adaptation and randomized clinical trial”, “ion releasing restorations
OR bioactive resin composite OR bio interactive restorations AND clinical trials”. To identify ongoing clinical
trials, we also searched the ClinicalTrials.gov website. The outcome of the search among the abovementioned
databases was comprehensively checked and duplicated results was excluded.
To minimize publication bias, no language or publication date restrictions were applied. Two reviewers (E.H.
and H.H.) independently extracted data and assessed their eligibility and risk of bias. Any disagreements were
resolved by consulting a third reviewer (H.C.).
Study selection and assessment of eligibility. According to the search strategy, assessment of the
eligibility of trials was performed by the two reviewers according to the relevance of the title. Abstracts of studies
that could not be excluded based on the title were retrieved and evaluated. At the final stage of evaluation, full
texts were assessed to determine if they met the predetermined inclusion criteria. The included studies received
an identification code composed of the first author’s last name and the year of publication.
Two reviewers extracted data from included studies such as the number of patients and restorations per
group, intervention, and comparator, follow-up period, study design, evaluation criteria, adhesive strategy, cavity
design, isolation technique, patient’s age, settings, and location of data collection. In studies that reported multiple
follow-up periods, data from the longest follow-up were extracted. If more than one type of resin composite was
used, the data were combined into a single entry. For ion-releasing restorations, GIC-based restorations (HVGIC,
glass hybrid, and RMGIC) were combined into a single entry and compomer restorations were pooled together.
Assessment of risk of bias. The Risk of Bias (RoB) of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane
Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool (version 2.0) for RCTs33. The six domains of the RoB Tool are assessment of
random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants and personnel, blinding of the
outcome assessors, incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), selective outcome reporting, and other sources of
bias. In this study, the other sources of bias domain was not included. Each entry received a judgment of low,
unclear, or high risk of bias. At the study level, a study was considered at low risk of bias if all 5 domains of the
RoB tool for each outcome were at low risk of bias. If one or more domains were judged to have unclear risk,
the study was judged to have unclear risk. If at least one item was considered at high risk of bias, the study was
considered to have a high risk of bias.
Assessment of quality of evidence. The confidence in evidence was evaluated using the Grading of
Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE)34. According to GRADE, the body of
evidence can be rated as high, moderate, low, or very low. The GRADE pro-Guideline Development Tool (www.
gradepro.org) was used to create a summary-of-findings table.
The strength of cumulative evidence was assessed based on, the risk of bias, inconsistencies, indirectness,
imprecision, and publication bias. The data were summarized in the summary of findings (Table 2). The qual-
ity of evidence for the first 4 domains may be downgraded by 1, 2, or 3 levels based on “serious or very serious
risks. Publication bias may either be suspected or undetected. In the case of suspected bias, downgrading by 2
levels was m ade35,36.
Synthesis of data. Data were analysed using Revman 5.4 (Review Manager Version 5.4, The Cochrane
Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). Data from included studies were either dichotomous for the “Second-
ary Caries” outcome measure or ordinal for the “Marginal Adaptation” outcome measure. Marginal adaptation
data were dichotomized to NO representing Alpha and Bravo scores of the modified USPHS criteria, and scores
1 and 2 of the FDI criteria, or YES corresponding to Charlie and Delta scores of the modified USPHS criteria,
and 3, 4, and 5 scores of the FDI criteria. Risk differences as an effect measure with 95% confidence intervals
and random effects model were employed. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Q test and I2 statistics, where
25%, 50%, and 75% represent low, moderate heterogeneity, and high heterogeneity respectively. For both the
outcomes (secondary caries and marginal adaptation), data from 3 follow-up periods were included, i.e., 1 year,
18 months—2 years, and 3 years. For secondary caries outcome, two analyses were performed, one with all types
of cavities, and one for load-bearing cavities.
Results
Search details. The initial search in the databases resulted in 3744 studies being identified after dupli-
cates exclusion. After title screening, 3584 articles were excluded, and the remaining 160 abstracts were further
assessed for eligibility. Articles that had multiple reports corresponding to different follow-up periods were com-
bined into a single entry and the data of the longest follow-up were included in this study. This process culmi-
Vol.:(0123456789)
Figure 1. Prisma flow chart of the study selection process.
nated in 39 studies that were to be progressed to full-text analysis. Subsequent full-text analysis of these studies
resulted in 22 studies that met the inclusion criteria (Fig. 1).
Risk of bias evaluation. Overall, 3 studies were deemed to have a low risk of b ias19,37,38, 3 studies s howed39–41
unclear risk of bias while the remaining 16 studies had a high risk of bias. Seven s tudies17,42–47 did not report
random sequence generation, while 50% of the included studies reported allocation concealment. Performance
bias was unclear in the majority of studies (16 out of 22), while outcome assessment was blinded in all studies
except for 343,48,49. No attrition bias was noticed in any of the included studies except for one44, which did not
adequately report the number of dropouts (Fig. 2).
Vol:.(1234567890)
Included studies characteristics. The characteristics and methodological assessment of the 22 included
studies are summarized in Table 1. In 15 of the included studies16,19,37,38,41–44,46–48,50–53, split-mouth design was
employed while 7 studies reported a parallel study d esign17,39,40,45,49,54,55. Most of the studies employed the modi-
fied USPHS criteria for restorations evaluation except for 4 s tudies16,17,50,51 that used FDI criteria. One s tudy43
used the McComb et al., criteria56. Five studies used HV-GIC16,17,19,39,49. Two studies used glass hybrid38,51. Resin-
modified glass ionomer was used in 9 studies37,41–43,45,50,52,54,57, while 2 studies used conventional G IC43,53. Com-
pomer (poly-acid modified composite) was used in 7 studies40,44–48,54. Most of the studies used nano- or micro-
hybrid composite. Bulk-fill composite was used in one study39. Nano-filled composite was used in 2 studies46,57
while one study used micro-filled composite44. Most follow-up periods ranged between 2 and 3 years. Long-
term follow-up was reported in 2 studies19,40 which had a follow-up period of 10 and 7 years respectively. One
study41 was terminated after 1 year due to an unacceptable failure rate. Class II cavities were reported in 7
studies19,39,41,47,49,51. Class I cavities were evaluated in 3 studies 17,19,41. Non-carious cervical lesions were evaluated
in 11 studies16,38,42,44–46,48,50,52,53,57. Class V carious lesions were evaluated in 4 s tudies37,40,43,54. For HV-GIC, glass
hybrid, and conventional GIC, Cavity conditioner of poly-acrylic acid was used in all studies except 2 which did
not report any type of pre-treatment38,53. For RMGIC, 2 studies used 37% phosphoric acid etching for 5 s37,41.
Two studies used Vitremer primer45,52 while another study used GC cavity conditioner for RMGIC, and Ketac
nano primer for nano-filled R MGIC42,57. For Compomer, 5 studies used self-etch adhesive (SE)40,45,46,48,54, while
2 studies used etch-and-rinse adhesive (ER)44,47.
For resin composite,8 studies used ER adhesive system 16,37,42–45,47,52,57 while 9 studies used SE
adhesives17,19,40,41,46,48,50,51,54. Two studies used a universal adhesive in selective etch m ode38,49, 1 in SE m ode39,
and 1 in ER m ode53. For moisture control, cotton rolls and saliva ejectors were reported in the majority of studies
except for 3 studies that used rubber dam isolation44,51,52.
Patients in all studies had no systemic diseases except two43,53. In one study53, patients were required to have
at least one systemic disease and the other one43 included subjects who were xerostomic, head and neck, cancer
patients who received radiation therapy. Ten studies16,19,37–39,41,49–51,53 were published in the years (2018–2020) with
6 in 2020, 3 in 2019, and 1 in 2018. No studies were identified from January to May of 2021. Five studies17,40,43,52,57
were published between 2010 and 2014. Seven s tudies42,44–48,54 were published before 2010.
Descriptive analysis. Studies that reported secondary caries and marginal adaptation in different follow-
up periods were included in the meta-analysis (Figs. 3, 4, 5). For secondary caries outcome for all types of
cavities, the meta-analysis was grouped as follows: ion releasing materials (GIC) vs resin composite (RC) with
the following 3 follow-up periods, i. e. 1 year, 18–24 months, and 3 years. For secondary caries in load-bearing
cavities, ion-releasing material (GIC and compomer) vs resin composite, and data were extracted from the last
follow-up.
The difference in the number of studies in each follow-up is attributed to whether the outcome was reported
by the authors. For marginal adaptation outcome, GIC vs resin composite comparison was evaluated at the same 3
follow-up periods. secondary caries was not reported in all studies that compared compomer and resin composite
at different follow-up periods. Therefore, no meta-analysis was performed for compomer vs resin composite
comparison. Out of a total of 1448 GIC restorations, only 15 showed secondary caries with a percentage of 0.8%.
Similarly, 16 composite restorations failed due to caries out of 1637 with a percentage of 0.9%. In all studies that
compared compomer and resin composite, no occurrence of secondary caries was observed over the follow-up
periods which ranged between 2 and 3 years.
Meta‑analysis. Secondary caries. The risk difference for the comparison between GIC and RC for the
1-year and18 month–2 years follow-up periods was -0.00 with 95% CI between [− 0.1–0.01]. The 3-year follow-
up risk difference was 0.00 with 95% CI between [− 0.2–0.02] with no occurrence of secondary caries in both
arms. There was no statistically significant difference (P = 0.61) between GIC and RC in secondary caries devel-
opment at any of the follow-up periods. For a total of 1448 GIC restorations, 15 failed due to secondary caries,
in comparison with 16 out of 1637 composite restorations. Overall heterogeneity was low with I2 = 0%. (Fig. 3).
For secondary caries in load-bearing cavities, the risk difference was 0.0 with 95% CI between [− 0.01–0.02].
No statistically significant difference (P = 0.77) was found between ion-releasing material and secondary caries.
Marginal adaptation. The risk difference for the 1-year follow-up was 0.0.1 with 95% CI between [− 0.02–0.03].
Heterogeneity was high with an I 2 = 75%. No statistically significant difference (p ˃ 0.5) was found between the 2
materials. At 18 months–2 years follow-up, the risk difference was 0.03 with 95% CI between [− 0.02–0.08]. Het-
erogeneity was high with an I2 = 94%. At the 3-year follow-up, the risk difference was 0.00 with 95%CI between
[− 0.02–0.02]. Heterogeneity was low with an I2 = 0%.
The overall risk difference was 0.01 with 95%CI between [− 0.01–0.03]. Out of a total of 1255 GIC restora-
tions, 78 showed unacceptable marginal adaptation compared to 16 out of 1470 RC restorations. No statistically
significant difference was found between the 2 materials. Overall heterogeneity was high with an I2 = 84%. (Fig. 4).
GRADE quality of evidence. Assessment of the quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adapta-
tion outcomes for the 3 follow-up periods (1 year, 18–24 months, and 3 years) was low. This finding suggests
that the confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that further research is likely to have an impact on the
confidence of the estimate of effect (Table 2).
Vol.:(0123456789)
Figure 2. Risk of bias summary: authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study. Filled
Green circle Low ROB Filled Red circle High ROB Filled Yellow Circle Unclear ROB.
Vol:.(1234567890)
5. Total 7. Location/
1. Ion- 4. Number of number of settings 10. Secondary
releasing 2. Type of 3. Evaluation restorations/ restorations 6. Follow-up of data 8. Trial 9. Recall caries
Study ID material composite criteria per group and/patients period collection design rate detection
1.Bulk-fill
resin compos-
1. Equia Visual-tactile
ite: Filtek Bulk
Forte/34 with mirror,
Glass hybrid: Fill Posterior a
2. Filtek Bulk- Turkey/Uni- intraoral pho-
Balkaya et al.39 Equia Forte 2. Micro Modified USPHS 109/54 2 Years Parallel 100%
fill /38 versity tographs, prob
Fil a hybrid
3. Charisma and bitewing
composite:
smart /37 radiographs
Charisma
Smart c
1. Equia Fil/40
class I, 30
1. Microhy- Visual-tactile
class II
brid resin with mirror,
1. HVGIC: 2. Gradia Turkey/Uni-
Gurgan et al. 19
composite: Modified USPHS 140/59 10 Years Split-mouth 88.1% coloured pho-
Equia Fil a Direct versity
Gradia Direct tographs and
Posteior/40
Posterior a prob
class I, 30
class II
Visual-tactile
1. Microhy- method with
1. Riva LC/55
Koc Vural 1. RMGIC: brid compos- Turkey/Uni- mouth mirror
Modified USPHS 2. Spectrum 110/33 3 Years Split-mouth 90.91%
et al.37 Riva LC J ite: Spectrum versity and explorer
TPH3/55
TPH3 e under the dental
light unit
1. Nanofilled 1. Equia Forte
Glass hybrid: Visual with the
Koc Vural composite: Fil/74 Turkey/Uni-
Equia Forte Modified USPHS 148/52 2 Years Split-mouth 88% aid of coloured
et al.38 Ceram X One 2. Ceram X versity
Fil a photographs
Universal e One/74
Visual-
Multicenter: tactile with
1. Nanohybrid 1. Equia
Glass hybrid: Croatia, Italy, (magnification
composite/ Forte/179
Miletić et al.51 Equia Forte FDI 358/184 2 Years Turkey, and Split-mouth 90.6% 2.5X), mirrors,
Tetric Evo- 2. Tetric Evo-
Fil a Serbia/Uni- and very thin
ceram c ceram/178
versity (250-μm-thick)
dental probes
1.MFR Hybrid Visual-tactile
Conventional 1. Fuji Bulk/67
Composite/ Turkey/Uni- with mirrors,
Oz et al.53 GIC: Fuji Modifies USPHS 2. Gaenial 134/30 1 Year Split-mouth 93%
Gaenial Poste- versity probes, and air
Bulk a Posterior/67
rior a streams
1.MFR Hybrid
Visual-tactile
1. HVGIC: Composite 1. Equia Fil /67 Turkey/Uni-
Celik et al.16 FDI 134/22 3 Years Split-mouth 82% using a mirror
Equia Fil a G-aenial 2. G-aenial/67 versity
and an explorer
Posterior a
Visual-tactile
with photo-
1. Equia Fil/77 Brazil/17 pub-
Menezes-Silva 1. HVGIC: 2. Filtek Z350 graphs, mirror,
Modified USPHS 2. Filtek 154/154 1 year lic primary Parallel 94.8%
et al.49 Equia Fil a XT Universal b and ballpoint
Z350/77 schools
periodontal
prob
Visual-tactile
1. RMGIC: 1. Nanofilled 1. Activa using mirror
Van Dijken Sweden/Uni-
Activa Bioac- composite: Modified USPHS Bioactive/82 164/67 1 Year Split-mouth 96.3% and explorer
et al.41 versity
tive f Ceram X e 2. Ceram X/82 and radiographs
one-year recall
1. GC II LC/98
2. Solar X , pas- Visual using
1. Microfine sive adhesive dental-operating
1. RMGIC:
Jassal et al. 50
hybrid comp- FDI application/98 294/56 18 Months India/n.r Split-mouth 90.81% microscope at
GC II LC a
iste/Solar X a 3. Solar X, rig- 1 × magnifica-
ouros adhesive tion
application/98
1. Fuji IX GP
Visual using
Extra/87 Vietnam/Pri-
1. HVGIC: 1. Microfine headlight,
2. Fuji IX GP mary school
Diem t al.17 Fuji IX GP hybrid Com- FDI 254/91 3 Years Parallel 77.9% natural light,
Extra with in semi-rual
Extra a posite: Solar a and digital
G-coat plus/84 area
photographs
3. Solar /83
1. Dyract
1. Hybrid Visual-tactile
Van Dijken 1. Compomer: AP/69
compiste/Tet- Modified USPHS 139/60 7 Years University Parallel 97.1% using a mirror,
et al.40 Dyract AP e 2. Tetric
ric Ceram c and an explorer
Ceram/70
Visual using
1. RMGIC: 1. Fuji II LC/31 a mirror and
1. Nanofilled
Fuji II LC a 2. Ketac intra-oral-
Perdigão composite: Brazil/Uni-
2. Nanofilled Modified USPHS Nano/30 92/33 1 Year Parallel 84.8% coloured
et al.57 Filtek Suprem versity
RMGIC: 3. Filtek photographs at
Plus b
Ketac Nano b Suprem/31 1.5 × magnifica-
tion
Continued
Vol.:(0123456789)
5. Total 7. Location/
1. Ion- 4. Number of number of settings 10. Secondary
releasing 2. Type of 3. Evaluation restorations/ restorations 6. Follow-up of data 8. Trial 9. Recall caries
Study ID material composite criteria per group and/patients period collection design rate detection
1. Conven-
1. Microhy-
tional GIC: 1. Ketac Fil/35
De Moor brid compiste: McComb et al., Belgium/Pri- Tactile using an
Ketac Fil b 2. Photac Fil/35 105/35 2 Years Split-mouth 77.1%
et al.43 Herculite criteria vat practice explorer
2. RMGIC: 3. Herculite/35
XRV d
Photac Fil b
2. Nanohybrid 1. Vitremer/35 Visual-tactile
Santiago 1. RMGIC: Brazil/Uni-
composite: Modified USPHS 2. Tetric 70/35 2 Years Split-mouth 93.3% using a mirror,
et al.52 Vitremer b versity
Tetric Ceram c Ceram/35 and an explorer
1. Univer-
United Visual-tactile
Pollington 1. Compomer: sal Hybrid 1. Hytac/30
Modified USPHS 60/30 3 Years Kingdom/ Split-mouth 100% (no details are
et al.48 Hytac b composite: 2. Pertac II/30
University mentioned)
Pertac II b
1. Nanofilled Visual-tactile
1. Dyract/50
1. Compomer: compos- Turkey/Uni- using a mirror,
Türkün et al.46 e USPHS 2. Filtek 100/24 2 Years Split-mouth 100%
Dyract ite: Filtek versity an explorer and
Supreme/50
Supreme b radiographs
1. F 2000 + Sin-
gle bond
(ER)/30
1. Microfilled Visual-tactile
1. Compomer: 2. F 2000 + SE USA/Univer-
Gallo et al.44 composite: Modified USPHS 90/30 3 Years Split-mouth 100% (No details are
F 2000 b primer/30 sity
Silux Plus b mentioned)
3. Silux
Plus + Single
bond/30
1. RMGIC:
1. Vitremer /24
Vitremer b
1. Universal 2. F 2000/38 Visual-tactile
2. Compomer: Turkey/Uni-
Onal et al. 45
composite: Modified USPHS 3. Dyract 64 130/30 2 Years Parallel ara> 93.8% (no details are
F 2000 b versity
Valus Plus b 4. Valus mentioned)
3. Compomer:
Plus/22
Dyract e
1. Microhy- Visual-tactile
Brackett 1. RMGIC: 1. Fuji II LC/37 Mexico/Uni-
brid compos- Modified USPHS 74/24 2 Years Split-mouth 73% (no details are
et al.42 Fuji II LC a 2. Z250/37 versity
ite/Z250 b mentioned)
1. Dyract/23 Visual-tactile
1. Microhy- 2 Dyract using mirror,
South Africa/
1. Compomer: brid compiste: covered with periodontal rob,
Wucher et al.47 USPHS 69/23 3 Years Private Split-mouth 86.9%
Dyract e Spectrum Spectrum /23 and periapical
practice
TPH e 3. Spectrum radiographs at
TPH/23 1-year recalls
1. Compomer:
Dyract e 1. Dyract/79
1. Hybrid Germany/ Visual-tactile
Folwaczny., 2. RMGIC: 2. Fuji II LC/51
Compoiste: Modified USPHS 197/37 2 Years University Parallel N.r using mirrors
et al.54 Fuji II LC a 3. Tetric
Tetric Ceram c setting and a prob
3. RMGIC: Ceram/36
Photac Fil b
16. Patient’s
15. Adhesive age
11. Cavity 12. Gingival 14. Adhesive technique/ Mean ± SD
10. Black’s design and margin location/ 13. Moisture technique/ Ion-releasing [Range], in
Study ID classification size enamel bevel control Composite material years
Polyacrylic
Conservative Cotton pellets Single Bond
Balkaya et al.39 Class II Enamel/no bevel acid condi- 2220–32
slot design and suction Universal b/SE
tioner a
Polyacrylic
G-bond a/One
Gurgan et al.19 Class I and II Conservative Enamel/no bevel Cotton rolls acid condi- 2415–37
step SE
tioner a
Cotton rolls Prime & Bond 37% phos-
Koc Vural Class V (cari-
Conservative Dentine/no bevel and saliva NT e/2-step phoric acid 52.69 ± 9.737–88
et al.37 ous)
ejector ER for 5 s
Prime & Bond
Elect One e/
Wedge Cotton rolls Univeral
Koc Vural Class V No precondi-
shaped, and N.R and saliva adhseive 55 ± 8.340,42–71
et al.38 (NCCL) tioning
saucer-shaped ejector with selective
enamel etch-
ing
Rubber dam
Conservative, for composite
Miletić Adhese c/2- Polyacrlic acid
Class II moderate to Enamel/no bevel High suction > 18
et al.51ara> step SE condition a
large and cotton roll
for GIC
G-premio 61.8 ± n.r
Class V Enamel + dentine/ bond a/Uni- No pre- Patient had at
Oz et al.53 Non-retentive Cotton rolls
(NCCL) n.r versal adhesive treatment least one sys-
in ER mode temic disease
Continued
Vol:.(1234567890)
16. Patient’s
15. Adhesive age
11. Cavity 12. Gingival 14. Adhesive technique/ Mean ± SD
10. Black’s design and margin location/ 13. Moisture technique/ Ion-releasing [Range], in
Study ID classification size enamel bevel control Composite material years
Cotton rolls,
Optibond
Class V Wedge or retraction cord, Polyacrylic
Celik et al.16 Dentine/no bevel FLd/a 3-step 47.8 ± nr34–62
(NCCL) saucer-shaped and a saliva acid a
ER
aspirator
GIC/ATR
Menezes-Silva Dentine/retention Single Bond Polyacrylic
Class II Composite/ Cotton rolls N.r8–19
et al.49 grooves for GIC Universal b acid a
conservative
Etching for
Van Dijken Retentive Cotton rolls Xeno select
Class I and II N.r/no bevel 5 s with phos- 58.3 ± n.r37–85
et al.41 cavity and suction e
/1- step SE
phoric acid
Cotton rolls
Class V Enamel + dentine/ G-bond a/1- Polyacrylic
Jassal et al.50 Non-retentive and retraction > 18
(NCCL) no bevel step SE acid
cord
N.r11,12 with
17 Adhesive cav- G-bond a/1- Polyacrylic occlusal caries
Diem et al. Class I No bevel Cotton rolls
ity preparation step SE acid in permanent
first molars
Cotton rolls
Van Dijken Class V (cari- Xeno III e/1- Xeno III e/1- 61.5 ± n.
Non-retentive Dentine/no bevel and saliva suc-
et al.40 ous) step SE step SE r40,43–83
tion device
1. Ketac Nano
primer b
k
Perdigão Class V FGM /2-step . Polyacrylic
Non-retentive n.r/no bevel Cotton rolls 48.7 ± n.r30–78
et al.57 (NCCL) ER acid condi-
tioner with
Fuji LC
45 [n.r]
Conventional
De Moor Class V (cari- Optibond FL Polyacrylic Head and
cavity prepa- Enamel/bevel N.r
et al.43 ous) d
/3-step ER acid a neck cancer
ration
patients
Santiago Class V Excite c/2-step Vitremer
Non-retentive Enamel/no bevel Rubber dam N.r 18–50
et al.52 (NCCL) ER Primer b
Cotton rolls
Pollington Class V Enamel + dentine/ Prompt L-Pop Prompt L-Pop
Non-retentive and high suc- 54 [N.r]
et al.48 (NCCL) no bevel b
/1-step b
/1-step
tion
Cotton rolls Clearfil Clearfil
Class V
Türkün et al.46 Non-retentive No bevel and retraction protect y/2- protect y/2- 44 25–54
(NCCL)
cord step SE step SE
1. Single Bond
Class V Enamel + dentine/ Single Bond
Gallo et al.44 Non-retetnive Rubber dam b
b
/2-step ER N.r
(NCCL) bevel /2-step ER
2. F 2000 b/SE
1. Vitremer
Class V Enamel + dentine/ Cotton rolls Scotchbond
Onal et al.45 Non-retentive b Primer b N.r 27–63
(NCCL) no bevel and suction /3-step ER
2
Cotton rolls
Brackett Class V Enamel + dentine/ Single Bond Polyacrylic
Non-retentive and retraction 47 ± n.r 28–72
et al.42 (NCCL) n.r b
/3-step ER acid a
cord
Cotton rolls Prime and Prime and
Conventional
Wucher et al.47 Class II N.r/no bevels and saliva Bond 2.1 e/2- Bond 2.1 e/2- N.r 25–61
design
ejector step ER step ER
Class V
Folwaczny Enamel + dentine/ Syntac C/3- PSA Dyract
(carious and Non-retentive Cotton rolls N.r 26–66
et al.54 bevel step ER e
/2-step SE
NCCL)
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies. a: GC,Tokyo, Japan, b: 3 M. c: Heraeus Kulzer, Ha-nau,
Germany. d: Kerr—Sybron Gmbh, Karlsruhe, Germany. e: Dentsply,Konstanz, Germany. C: Vivadent, Schaan,
Liechtenstein), f: Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA). j: SDI, Bayswater, Australia). y: Kuraray; Osaka, Japan).
k: Joinville, Brazil. n.r: not reported. ER: Etch-and-rinse. SE: Self-etch. ART: atraumatic restorative technique.
RC: resin composite.
Discussion
This systematic review discussed the occurrence of secondary caries in ion-releasing materials versus resin com-
posite. Glass ionomer and its derivatives are the most clinically reported ion-releasing materials. Compomer was
less frequently used. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference between the secondary
caries in resin composite and all derivatives of GIC.
Secondary caries is influenced by several factors with the most frequent ones being: the location of the lesion
(cervical, proximal, or occlusal), patient’s caries risk, age, and socioeconomic status, operator’s skills variation,
and detection methods and c riteria58. The majority of studies included in this review were conducted in university
settings with trained operators and under standardized conditions with patients who demonstrated moderate
oral hygiene. This could explain the low number of events. Secondary caries was found to be more frequent in
Vol.:(0123456789)
Figure 3. Forest plot of comparison: Ion releasing restoration (GIC) versus resin composite, outcome: 1.1
Secondary caries for all types of cavities.
Figure 4. Forest plot of comparison: Ion releasing restoration versus resin composite, outcome: 1.2 Secondary
caries for load-bearing cavities.
practice-based settings7. This could be attributed to the technique sensitivity of composite placement that requires
highly skilled and calibrated operators which is often the case in university s ettings59. Regarding operative pro-
cedures, the majority of studies in this review used cotton rolls and saliva ejectors for moisture control while
only 3 studies reported rubber dam isolation. Previous literature reported no significant difference between the
survival of composite restorations performed under either of the isolation p rotocols60.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Figure 5. Forest plot of comparison: Ion releasing restoration (GIC) versus resin composite, outcome: 1.3
marginal adaptation.
The location of the lesion is an important factor that could explain the generally low incidence of events.
Around 45% of the included studies involved NCCL which are less affected by secondary caries than posterior
occlusal and proximal c avities59. Secondary caries is reported to be more frequent with deep proximal restora-
tions with gingival margins extending beyond the cementoenamel junction with dentine and cementum as the
substrate61,62. Furthermore, the placement of such restorations is highly technique sensitive and isolation in every
restorative step cannot be strictly f ollowed9.
The Patient’s caries susceptibility is crucial in secondary caries development, as primary caries and secondary
caries are inherently the same diseases and consequently patients with high caries risk are more suspectable to
secondary caries63. The findings of this review were based on the results of studies performed on a population
of healthy individuals with good to moderate oral hygiene and with no debilitating conditions. One exception
is the study by De Moor et al.43, in which the population was head and neck xerostomic cancer patients who
received radiation therapy. De Moor et al. 43, reported a significantly higher failure rate due to secondary caries
in resin composite restorations in comparison with conventional GIC. Nevertheless, the findings of this study
cannot be generalized as this population is highly specific. However, the difference in the performance of different
materials in populations with compromised oral health indicates that patient factors could be more influential
than the choice of material.
Adhesive strategy and interfacial gap formation were speculated to play a role in secondary caries develop-
ment. Gaps at the margins of restorations can permit bacterial invasion and biofilm accumulation along the
tooth/restoration interface64. However, until now there is no Conesus in the literature regarding the role of gaps
in secondary caries development. In a study by Kidd et al.,65, it was suggested that microleakage cannot solely
induce active demineralization beneath a restoration, only when bacterial invasion takes place at the composite-
restoration interface, the size of the gap becomes pertinent.
The durability of the adhesive interface is critical for the survival of resin composite restorations, especially
with dentin margins. Several attempts have been made to increase the durability of adhesives to dentine including
using MMPs inhibitors, biomimetic remineralization, and increasing the hydrophobicity of the adhesive66–68. The
adhesion protocols in this systematic review varied between etch-and-rinse (9 studies) and self-etch adhesives
Vol.:(0123456789)
Certainty assessment Summary of findings

Anticipated absolute
Study event rates (%) effects
Risk
difference
With Ion Risk with with Ion
Participants Overall With resin releasing Relative resin releasing
(studies) Publication certainty of composite material effect (95% composite material
Follow up Risk of bias Inconsistency Indirectness Imprecision bias evidence restorations (GIC) CI) restorations (GIC)
Secondary caries—1-year follow-up
0 fewer per
1000
1677 (12 ⨁⨁◯◯ Not esti-
Serious A
Not serious Not serious SeriousB
none 8/880 (0.9%) 6/797 (0.8%) 9 per 1000 (from 10
RCTs) LOW mable
fewer to 10
more)
Secondary caries—18 months to 2 years follow-up
0 fewer per
1000
1087 ⨁⨁◯◯ Not esti-
Serious A
none 8/594 (1.3%) 9/493 (1.8%) 13 per 1000 (from 10
(8 RCTs) LOW mable
fewer to 10
more)
Secondary caries—Three-year follow-up
0 fewer per
1000
321 ⨁⨁◯◯ Not esti-
SeriousA Not serious Not serious SeriousB none 0/163 (0.0%) 0/158 (0.0%) 0 per 1000 (from 20
(3 RCTs) LOW mable
fewer to 20
more)
Marginal adaptation—One-Year follow-up
10 fewer per
1000
1386 ⨁⨁◯◯ 30/638 Not esti-
Serious A
none 6/748 (0.8%) 8 per 1,000 (from 30
(9 RCTs) LOW (4.7%) mable
fewer to 20
more)
Marginal adaptation—18 months to 2 years follow-up
30 fewer per
1000
1018 ⨁⨁◯◯ 10/559 48/459 Not esti-
SeriousA Not serious Not serious SeriousB none 18 per 1,000 (from 80
(7 RCTs) LOW (1.8%) (10.5%) mable
fewer to 20
more)
Marginal adaptation – Three-year follow-up
0 fewer per
1000
321 ⨁⨁◯◯ Not esti-
SeriousA Not serious Not serious SeriousB none 0/163 (0.0%) 0/158 (0.0%) 0 per 1,000 (from 20
(3 RCTs) LOW mable
fewer to 20
more)
Table 2. Quality assessment of the included studies according to the GRADE tool. CI: Confidence interval.
A: most of the information is from studies with an unclear or high risk of bias. B: Control and intervention
arms had no events. High quality: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate
of the effect. Moderate quality: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to
be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low quality: Our
confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of
the effect. Very low quality: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be
substantially different from the estimate of effect.
(8 studies), while 2 studies used universal adhesives in selective etch m ode38,49, one in SE m
ode39 and one in ER
ode53. The findings of this systematic review suggest that regarding secondary caries development, all adhesive
m
strategies performed similarly considering the low number of events. In a previous study that utilized a short-
term in vitro biofilm model69, the adhesive type affected carious lesion development and progression in gaps.
However, a recent systematic review and Network meta-analysis showed similar performance of all adhesive
strategies in preventing secondary c aries70. It is worth mentioning that the impact of adhesive strategy/type on
secondary caries development was not assessed quantitatively in this review, considering the overall scarcity of
secondary caries occurrence in the included follow-up periods.
The short follow-up period (2–3 years) in the majority of studies might have contributed to an overall low
incidence of events. Longer-term follow-up clinical trials showed an increased reporting of secondary carious
lesions71,72. According to the findings of a recent r eview59, the highest mean incidence of secondary caries devel-
opment was recorded after five years. Interestingly, the only long-term 10-year follow-up study for posterior
restorations (class I and II) in this r eview19, did not report failure due to secondary caries for composites and glass
ionomer restorations over the 10-year observational period. Furthermore, the detection methods and criteria of
evaluation might have played a role in reporting secondary caries. According to a systematic review by Brouwer
et al.73, only visual assessment would mean that 40% of secondary carious lesions will be missed, while 20% of
Vol:.(1234567890)
sound surfaces will be misdiagnosed as carious. Until now, there is no clear consensus on what constitutes a
secondary carious lesion that requires i ntervention8,9.
While the findings of in vitro s tudies74,75 reported a reduced risk of secondary caries in ion-releasing resto-
rations such as GICs and their derivatives, the relation between the restorative material and secondary caries
development is not clear in clinical settings. It is worth mentioning that clinical reporting in the form of ran-
domized clinical trials on the recently developed ion-releasing materials is still scarce. Developments such as
RMGIC with ionic resin matrix (Activa Bioactive) which is claimed to release ions in sufficient quantities to
induce remineralization and inhibit secondary caries have not been thoroughly evaluated. The short-term per-
formance was disappointing with an unacceptable failure rate due to the absence of an a dhesive41. (a protocol no
longer recommended by the manufacturer). Recent in vitro data regarding the ion-releasing Cention n showed
its ability to neutralize the acidic e nvironment76. However, no clinical evidence in the literature is available to
validate the laboratory data.
The quality of the interface between the tooth structure and the restoration can play a significant role in the
occurrence of secondary caries. While not the only route for secondary caries, the presence of a defective res-
toration margin can allow acidic fluids or biofilm to enter the interface via gaps. However, there is currently no
agreement on the role of microleakage in the development of caries near composites. Nonetheless, some in vivo
and in vitro studies suggest that the presence of a gap next to a composite restoration can result in the formation
of a "wall lesion.". The literature also suggests the presence of a correlation between the size of the gap and the
size of the dentinal wall l esions59,64,77–79.
The results of marginal adaptation between GIC derivatives showed comparable performance with resin
composite restorations with no significant difference between them. Marginal adaptation of restorations is highly
dependent on the quality of the adhesive i nterface80,81. Traditionally, attachment of resin composite restorations
was achieved through micromechanical adhesion that involved the etching of the dental s ubstrates82. Due to
their user-friendly application, simplified universal adhesives have grown in popularity. According to the lit-
erature, these adhesives are a single-bottle, no-mix adhesive system that works well with any adhesion strategy
and bonds adequately to tooth structure as well as various direct and indirect restorative materials83,84. However,
the simplification came at the expense of hydrophilicity which can lead to water seepage through the hybrid
layer causing nano leakage 85. Therefore, different protocols have been suggested to improve the performance of
simplified adhesives including increasing the application t ime86, the addition of a hydrophobic resin layer over
the adhesive87, and application of several layers of the simplified adhesive88. There is no clear consensus in the
literature on the optimal way to improve the long-term performance of simplified adhesives.
The results of this systematic review showed a wide variation in the adhesion protocol for the ion-releasing
materials, ranging from no pre-treatments to polyacrylic acid conditioners, ER, and SE adhesives. Nevertheless,
the overall incidence of marginal deterioration was low. It is important to highlight that the adherent substrate
which is a determining factor in the quality of the adhesion, is not consistent in all studies, with margins being
in enamel, dentine, or cementum. GICs were applied in the majority of studies after pre-treatment with a cav-
ity conditioner of poly-acrylic acid. It has been proposed that a tooth-GIC interaction interphase layer is seen
after GIC comes in contact with pre-treated dentin, as the pre-treatment facilitates diffusion of ions into the
demineralized substrate89,90.
A recent systematic review has shown that this interphase layer is notably resistant to acidic dissolution and
hence improving the quality of the adhesive interface91. It is important to note that in this review, scores 1 and 2
of the FDI criteria in the marginal adaptation outcome were considered to be a sign of no significant marginal
deterioration. This was done to distinguish early stages of marginal deterioration between ion-releasing materi-
als and resin composite restorations. Since, the presence of small marginal gaps, ditches could potentially be a
culprit in secondary caries development.
The risk of bias in more than 60% of the included studies was high, with only 3 studies reporting a low risk
of bias19,37,38. Performance bias was high or unclear in most studies as the nature and presentation of the used
materials are different and easily identified by dentists. It should be noted that the overall risk of bias of the study
was not considered as a ground for meta-analysis exclusion. Therefore, the results of this analysis should be cau-
tiously interpreted. The GRADE assessment of the quality of evidence was low for both outcomes (secondary
caries and marginal adaptation) which weakens confidence in the effect estimate. Consequently, the true effect
might be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Imprecision and risk of bias for both outcomes
had to be downgraded by one level each. The risk of bias for 2 of the primary domains (performance bias and
selection bias) was high for studies that contributed to the weight of the analysis. The absence of events in control
and intervention arms led to a downgrading for impression by one l evel92.
There are some limitations to this review. Firstly, no restriction was placed on the date of publication. Studies
that were published in the early 2000s presented a higher risk of bias and inadequate reporting which affected
their quality assessment. Although the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was
developed in 1 99693 and undergone a couple of r evisions94,95, many clinical trial reports remained inadequate.
Furthermore, short follow-up periods resulted in an overall low number of events. Also, several new ion-releasing
materials have emerged in the last 5 years. The results of this analysis were based on two broad categories of
materials (GICs and compomers). The findings of this review cannot be applied to all commercially available
ion-releasing materials.
Conclusions
1. Within the limitation of this work, this systematic review and meta-analysis revealed that secondary caries
occurrence is not dependent on the ion-releasing capability of restorative material.
Vol.:(0123456789)
2. Short-term follow-ups are a common denominator among the available body of evidence. Longer follow-
ups are recommended to accurately detect the performance of different restorative materials after prolonged
clinical service.
3. Several new ion-releasing materials lack high-quality clinical reporting and need further investigations.
Data availability
The data used in this article are available upon request from the corresponding author.
Received: 30 April 2022; Accepted: 31 August 2022
References
1. van Dijken, J. W. & Pallesen, U. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin
composite restorations. J. Adhes. Dent. 16, 585–592. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a33202 (2014).
2. 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. 17, 81. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a33502 (2015).
3. Barata, J. S. et al. Influence of gaps in adhesive restorations in the development of secondary caries lesions: An in situ evaluation.
Am. J. Dent. 25, 244–248 (2012).
4. Da Rosa Rodolpho, P. A. et al. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler
characteristics. Dent. Mater. 27, 955–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001 (2011).
5. Kramer, N. et al. Determination of caries risk at resin composite margins. Am. J. Dent. 20, 59–64 (2007).
6. Opdam, N. J. et al. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 93, 943.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034514544217 (2014).
7. Mjor, I. A. & Toffenetti, F. Secondary caries: A literature review with case reports. Quintessence Int 31, 165–179 (2000).
8. Machiulskiene, V. et al. Terminology of dental caries and dental caries management: Consensus report of a workshop organized
by ORCA and cariology research group of IADR. Caries Res. 54, 7–14. https://doi.org/10.1159/000503309 (2020).
9. Askar, H. et al. Secondary caries: What is it, and how it can be controlled, detected, and managed?. Clin Oral Investig 24, 1869–1876.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03268-7 (2020).
10. de Fucio, S. B. et al. Analyses of biofilms accumulated on dental restorative materials. Am. J. Dent. 22, 131–136 (2009).
11. Hansel, C., Leyhausen, G., Mai, U. E. & Geurtsen, W. Effects of various resin composite (co)monomers and extracts on two caries-
associated micro-organisms in vitro. J. Dent. Res. 77, 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345980770010601 (1998).
12. Zalkind, M. M., Keisar, O., Ever-Hadani, P., Grinberg, R. & Sela, M. N. Accumulation of Streptococcus mutans on light-cured
composites and amalgam: An in vitro study. J. Esthet. Dent. 10, 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1998.tb00356.x
(1998).
13. Pires, P. M. et al. Contemporary restorative ion-releasing materials: Current status, interfacial properties and operative approaches.
Br Dent J 229, 450–458. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-020-2169-3 (2020).
14. Lohbauer, U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials? – Properties. Limit. Future Trends 3, 76–96 (2010).
15. Banerjee, A. The role of glass-ionomer cements in minimum intervention (MI) caries management. In Glass-Ionomers in Dentistry
(ed. Sidhu, S. K.) 81–96 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2016).
16. Celik, E. U., Tunac, A. T. & Yilmaz, F. Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious
cervical lesions: A randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial. Clin. Oral. Investig. 23, 1473–1480. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00784-018-2575-y (2019).
17. Diem, V. T., Tyas, M. J., Ngo, H. C., Phuong, L. H. & Khanh, N. D. The effect of a nano-filled resin coating on the 3-year clinical
performance of a conventional high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement. Clin. Oral Investig. 18, 753–759. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00784-013-1026-z (2014).
18. Friedl, K., Hiller, K. A. & Friedl, K. H. Clinical performance of a new glass ionomer based restoration system: A retrospective
cohort study. Dent. Mater. 27, 1031–1037. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.07.004 (2011).
19. 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 94, 103175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2019.07.013 (2020).
20. Najeeb, S. et al. Modifications in glass ionomer cements: Nano-sized fillers and bioactive nanoceramics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. https://
doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071134 (2016).
21. Salinovic, I. et al. Mechanical properties of high viscosity glass ionomer and glass hybrid restorative materials. Acta Stomatol.
Croat. 53, 125–131. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc53/2/4 (2019).
22. Ruengrungsom, C., Palamara, J. E. A. & Burrow, M. F. Comparison of ART and conventional techniques on clinical performance
of glass-ionomer cement restorations in load bearing areas of permanent and primary dentitions: A systematic review. J. Dent. 78,
1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.07.008 (2018).
23. Vallittu, P. K., Boccaccini, A. R., Hupa, L. & Watts, D. C. Bioactive dental materials-Do they exist and what does bioactivity mean?.
Dent. Mater. 34, 693–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.03.001 (2018).
24. Garoushi, S., Vallittu, P. K. & Lassila, L. Characterization of fluoride releasing restorative dental materials. Dent. Mater. J. 37,
293–300. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-161 (2018).
25. Todd, J. C. Scientific Documentation: Cention N. Ivoclar Vivadent AG, research and development. Sci. Doc. 1–58. (2016).
26. Francois, P., Fouquet, V., Attal, J. P. & Dursun, E. Commercially available fluoride-releasing restorative materials: A review and a
proposal for classification. Materials (Basel) https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13102313 (2020).
27. Tiskaya, M., Al-eesa, N. A., Wong, F. S. L. & Hill, R. G. Characterization of the bioactivity of two commercial composites. Dent.
Mater. 35, 1757–1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2019.10.004 (2019).
28. Glasspoole, E. A., Erickson, R. L. & Davidson, C. L. Demineralization of enamel in relation to the fluoride release of materials.
Am. J. Dent. 14, 8–12 (2001).
29. Yaman, S. D., Er, O., Yetmez, M. & Karabay, G. A. In vitro inhibition of caries-like lesions with fluoride-releasing materials. J. Oral
Sci. 46, 45–50. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.46.45 (2004).
30. Okida, R. C., Mandarino, F., Sundfeld, R. H., de Alexandre, R. S. & Sundefeld, M. L. In vitro-evaluation of secondary caries forma-
tion around restoration. Bull. Tokyo Dent. Coll. 49, 121–128 (2008).
31. Hutton, B. 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. 162, 777–784. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385 (2015).
32. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G. & Group, P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:
The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6, e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 (2009).
33. Higgins, J. P. T. et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. J. BMJ 343, d5928. https://
doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 (2011).
Vol:.(1234567890)
34. Alonso-Coello, P. et al. GRADE Evidence to Decision (EtD) frameworks: a systematic and transparent approach to making well
informed healthcare choices. 1: Introduction. BMJ 353, i2016. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2016 (2016).
35. Guyatt, G. H. et al. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336,
924–926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD (2008).
36. Balshem, H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 64, 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclinepi.2010.07.015 (2011).
37. 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 https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10266-020-00550-8 (2020).
38. Koc Vural, U., Meral, E., Ergin, E. & Gürgan, S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious
cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: A split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Clin. Oral Investig. 24, 1229–1238. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00784-019-02986-x (2020).
39. Balkaya, H. & Arslan, S. A two-year clinical comparison of three different restorative materials in class II cavities. Oper Dent. 45,
E32-e42. https://doi.org/10.2341/19-078-c (2020).
40. van Dijken, J. W. & Pallesen, U. A 7-year randomized prospective study of a one-step self-etching adhesive in non-carious cervical
lesions. The effect of curing modes and restorative material. J. Dent. 40, 1060–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.017
(2012).
41. van Dijken, J. W. V., Pallesen, U. & Benetti, A. A randomized controlled evaluation of posterior resin restorations of an altered
resin modified glass-ionomer cement with claimed bioactivity. Dent. Mater. 35, 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.
11.027 (2019).
42. Brackett, W. W., Dib, A., Brackett, M. G., Reyes, A. A. & Estrada, B. E. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified
glass-lonomer and resin composite restorations. Oper. Dent. 28, 477–481 (2003).
43. 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. 15, 31–38. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s00784-009-0355-4 (2011).
44. Gallo, J. R. et al. Three-year clinical evaluation of a compomer and a resin composite as Class V filling materials. Oper. Dent. 30,
275–281 (2005).
45. Onal, B. & Pamir, T. The two-year clinical performance of esthetic restorative materials in noncarious cervical lesions. J. Am. Dent.
Assoc. 136, 1547–1555. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0085 (2005).
46. Türkün, L. S. & Celik, E. U. Noncarious class V lesions restored with a polyacid modified resin composite and a nanocomposite:
A two-year clinical trial. J. Adhes. Dent. 10, 399–405 (2008).
47. Wucher, M., Grobler, S. R. & Senekal, P. J. A 3-year clinical evaluation of a compomer, a composite and a compomer/composite
(sandwich) in class II restorations. Am. J. Dent. 15, 274–278 (2002).
48. Pollington, S. & van Noort, R. A clinical evaluation of a resin composite and a compomer in non-carious Class V lesions. A 3-year
follow-up. Am. J. Dent. 21, 49–52 (2008).
49. Menezes-Silva, R. et al. Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin
after 12 months. Clin. Oral Investig. 23, 3623–3635. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2787-1 (2019).
50. Jassal, M., Mittal, S. & Tewari, S. Clinical effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a mild one-step self-etch
adhesive applied actively and passively in noncarious cervical lesions: An 18-month clinical trial. Oper. Dent. 43, 581–592. https://
doi.org/10.2341/17-147-c (2018).
51. Miletić, I. et al. Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system compared with a resin composite in the posterior region: Results of
a 2-year multicenter study. J. Adhes. Dent. 22, 235–247. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a44547 (2020).
52. Santiago, S. L. et al. Two-year clinical evaluation of resinous restorative systems in non-carious cervical lesions. Braz. Dent. J. 21,
229–234. https://doi.org/10.1590/s0103-64402010000300010 (2010).
53. Oz, F. D., Meral, E., Ergİn, E. & Gurgan, S. One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of
non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: A randomized, clinical trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 28, e20200311. https://
doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2020-0311 (2020).
54. Folwaczny, M., Loher, C., Mehl, A., Kunzelmann, K. H. & Hinkel, R. Tooth-colored filling materials for the restoration of cervical
lesions: A 24-month follow-up study. Oper. Dent. 25, 251–258 (2000).
55. Perdigão, J. et al. Randomized clinical trial of four adhesion strategies: 18-month results. Oper. Dent. 37, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.
2341/11-222-c (2012).
56. 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.
27, 430–437 (2002).
57. Perdigão, J., Dutra-Corrêa, M., Saraceni, S. H., Ciaramicoli, M. T. & Kiyan, V. H. Randomized clinical trial of two resin-modified
glass ionomer materials: 1-year results. Oper. Dent. 37, 591–601. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-415-c (2012).
58. Demarco, F. F. et al. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing?. Braz. Oral Res. 31, e56. https://doi.org/
10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0056 (2017).
59. Nedeljkovic, I., Teughels, W., De Munck, J., Van Meerbeek, B. & Van Landuyt, K. L. Is secondary caries with composites a material-
based problem?. Dent. Mater. 31, e247–e277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.09.001 (2015).
60. Raskin, A., Setcos, J. C., Vreven, J. & Wilson, N. H. Influence of the isolation method on the 10-year clinical behaviour of posterior
resin composite restorations. Clin. Oral Investig. 4, 148–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840000069 (2000).
61. Mjor, I. A. Clinical diagnosis of recurrent caries. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 136, 1426–1433 (2005).
62. Kuper, N. K. et al. Gap size and wall lesion development next to composite. J. Dent. Res. 93, 108S-S113. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022034514534262 (2014).
63. Nedeljkovic, I. et al. Secondary caries: Prevalence, characteristics, and approach. Clin. Oral Investig. 24, 683–691. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s00784-019-02894-0 (2020).
64. Cenci, M. S., Pereira-Cenci, T., Cury, J. A. & Ten Cate, J. M. Relationship between gap size and dentine secondary caries formation
assessed in a microcosm biofilm model. Caries Res. 43, 97–102. https://doi.org/10.1159/000209341 (2009).
65. Kidd, E. A. & Fejerskov, O. What constitutes dental caries? Histopathology of carious enamel and dentin related to the action of
cariogenic biofilms. J. Dent. Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910408301s07 (2004).
66. Tjaderhane, L. et al. Strategies to prevent hydrolytic degradation of the hybrid layer-A review. Dent. Mater. 29, 999–1011. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.07.016 (2013).
67. Toledano, M., Yamauti, M., Osorio, E. & Osorio, R. Zinc-inhibited MMP-mediated collagen degradation after different dentine
demineralization procedures. Caries Res. 46, 201–207. https://doi.org/10.1159/000337315 (2012).
68. Tezvergil-Mutluay, A. et al. The requirement of zinc and calcium ions for functional MMP activity in demineralized dentin matrices.
Dent. Mater. 26, 1059–1067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.07.006 (2010).
69. Kuper, N. K. et al. Restoration materials and secondary caries using an in vitro biofilm model. J. Dent. Res. 94, 62–68. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0022034514553245 (2015).
Vol.:(0123456789)
70. Askar, H., Krois, J., Gostemeyer, G. & Schwendicke, F. Secondary caries risk of different adhesive strategies and restorative materi-
als in permanent teeth: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. J. Dent. 104, 103541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2020.
103541 (2021).
71. Laske, M., Opdam, N. J. M., Bronkhorst, E. M., Braspenning, J. C. C. & Huysmans, M. Ten-year survival of class II restorations
placed by general practitioners. JDR Clin. Trans. Res. 1, 292–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/2380084416663192 (2016).
72. Opdam, N. J., Bronkhorst, E. M., Loomans, B. A. & Huysmans, M. C. 12-year survival of composite vs. amalgam restorations. J.
Dent. Res. 89, 1063–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034510376071 (2010).
73. Brouwer, F., Askar, H., Paris, S. & Schwendicke, F. Detecting secondary caries lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J.
Dent. Res. 95, 143–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034515611041 (2016).
74. Askar, H., Brouwer, F., Lehmensiek, M., Paris, S. & Schwendicke, F. The association between loading of restorations and secondary
caries lesions is moderated by the restoration material elasticity. J. Dent. 58, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2017.01.002
(2017).
75. Hetrodt, F., Lausch, J., Meyer-Lueckel, H., Conrads, G. & Apel, C. Evaluation of restorative materials containing preventive addi-
tives in a secondary caries model in vitro. Caries Res. 53, 447–456. https://doi.org/10.1159/000496401 (2019).
76. Gupta, N. et al. Comparison of fluoride ion release and alkalizing potential of a new bulk-fill alkasite. J. Conserv. Dent. 22, 296–299.
https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_74_19 (2019).
77. Nassar, H. M. & Gonzalez-Cabezas, C. Effect of gap geometry on secondary caries wall lesion development. Caries Res. 45, 346–352.
https://doi.org/10.1159/000329384 (2011).
78. Thomas, R. Z., Ruben, J. L., ten Bosch, J. J., Fidler, V. & Huysmans, M. C. Approximal secondary caries lesion progression, a 20-week
in situ study. Caries Res. 41, 399–405. https://doi.org/10.1159/000104799 (2007).
79. Espejo, L. C., Simionato, M. R., Barroso, L. P., Netto, N. G. & Luz, M. A. Evaluation of three different adhesive systems using a
bacterial method to develop secondary caries in vitro. Am. J. Dent. 23, 93–97 (2010).
80. Kakaboura, A., Rahiotis, C., Watts, D., Silikas, N. & Eliades, G. 3D-marginal adaptation versus setting shrinkage in light-cured
microhybrid resin composites. Dent. Mater. 23, 272–278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.020 (2007).
81. He, Z., Shimada, Y., Sadr, A., Ikeda, M. & Tagami, J. The effects of cavity size and filling method on the bonding to Class I cavities.
J. Adhes. Dent. 10, 447–453 (2008).
82. Foxton, R. M. Current perspectives on dental adhesion: (2) Concepts for operatively managing carious lesions extending into
dentine using bioactive and adhesive direct restorative materials. Jpn. Dent. Sci. Rev. 56, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdsr.
2020.08.003 (2020).
83. Matos, A. B. et al. Bonding efficiency and durability: current possibilities. Braz. Oral Res. 31, e57. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-
3107BOR-2017.vol31.0057 (2017).
84. Alex, G. Universal adhesives: the next evolution in adhesive dentistry?. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 36, 15–26 (2015).
85. Van Landuyt, K. L. et al. The role of HEMA in one-step self-etch adhesives. Dent. Mater. 24, 1412–1419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
dental.2008.02.018 (2008).
86. Toledano, M. et al. Increases in dentin-bond strength if doubling application time of an acetone-containing one-step adhesive.
Oper. Dent. 32, 133–137. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-32 (2007).
87. Sezinando, A. et al. Influence of a hydrophobic resin coating on the immediate and 6-month dentin bonding of three universal
adhesives. Dent. Mater. 31, e236–e246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2015.07.002 (2015).
88. Chasqueira, A. F., Arantes-Oliveira, S. & Portugal, J. Effect of changes to the manufacturer application techniques on the shear
bond strength of simplified dental adhesives. J. Appl. Biomater. Funct. Mater. 11, e117–e121. https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.50001
56 (2013).
89. Toledano, M. et al. In vitro mechanical stimulation facilitates stress dissipation and sealing ability at the conventional glass ionomer
cement-dentin interface. J. Dent. 73, 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2018.04.006 (2018).
90. Yilmaz, Y., Gurbuz, T. & Kocogullari, M. E. The influence of various conditioner agents on the interdiffusion zone and microleak-
age of a glass lonomer cement with a high viscosity in primary teeth. Oper. Dent. 30, 105–112 (2005).
91. Mustafa, H. A., Soares, A. P., Paris, S., Elhennawy, K. & Zaslansky, P. The forgotten merits of GIC restorations: A systematic review.
Clin. Oral Investig. 24, 2189–2201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03334-0 (2020).
92. Castellini, G., Bruschettini, M., Gianola, S., Gluud, C. & Moja, L. Assessing imprecision in Cochrane systematic reviews: A com-
parison of GRADE and Trial Sequential Analysis. Syst. Rev. 7, 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0770-1 (2018).
93. Begg, C. et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 276, 637–639.
https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.276.8.637 (1996).
94. Moher, D., Schulz, K. F. & Altman, D. G. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports
of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 357, 1191–1194 (2001).
95. Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Moher, D. & Grop, C. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group
randomised trials. Trials 11, 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 (2010).
Author contributions
Conception and design of study: H.H. H.A.M.A.M.A., S.H.M., E.A.; Acquisition of data: E.A., H.H.
H.A.M.A.M.A., H.C., M.M., S.H.M.; Analysis and/or interpretation of data: E.A., H.H. H.A.M.A.M.A.; Draft-
ing the manuscript: E.A., H.C., H.H. H.A.M.A.M.A., S.H.M.; Revising the manuscript critically for important
intellectual content: H.C., H.H. H.A.M.A.M.A., S.H.M.
Funding
This study was funded by 3 M/Key Opinion Leader Scholarship.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6.
Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to H.H.H.
Reprints and permissions information is available at www.nature.com/reprints.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.
Vol:.(1234567890)
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International
License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or
format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the
Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the
material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2022
Vol.:(0123456789)

Albelasy Et Al-2022-Scientific Reports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albelasy Et Al-2022-Scientific Reports

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albelasy Et Al-2022-Scientific Reports

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

www.nature.

OPEN Secondary caries and marginal

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 1

• Population: patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 2

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 3

Figure 1. Prisma flow chart of the study selection process.

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 4

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 5

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 6

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 7

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 8

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 9

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 10

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 11

Certainty assessment Summary of findings

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 12

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 13

Received: 30 April 2022; Accepted: 31 August 2022

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 14

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 15

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 16

© The Author(s) 2022

Scientific Reports | (2022) 12:19244 | https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-19622-6 17

You might also like