Search result: There is still a lack of studies to this topic and only two clinical studies concerning restorations were found.
Clinical outcomes: The results indicate no difference in the retention rate after 12 and 42 months in Class V and Class II restorations, respectively.
State of evidence and recommendations: The quality of the existing evidence requires further assessment.
[‘Preliminary Systematic Literature Searches’ are based on SYSTEM’s periodic systematic searches of the dental literature and provide first overviews over existing clinical evidence but are limited in the number of databases searched, as well as the assessment of precision and internal validity of results and thus do not replace the need for a full systematic review report to the topic]
Mickenautsch, S. (2019). Retention of conventional GIC versus RM-GIC restorations [October 11, 2015]. Afribary. Retrieved from https://afribary.com/works/retention-of-conventional-gic-versus-rm-gic-restorations-october-11-2015
Mickenautsch, Steffen "Retention of conventional GIC versus RM-GIC restorations [October 11, 2015]" Afribary. Afribary, 26 May. 2019, https://afribary.com/works/retention-of-conventional-gic-versus-rm-gic-restorations-october-11-2015. Accessed 07 May. 2024.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Retention of conventional GIC versus RM-GIC restorations [October 11, 2015]". Afribary, Afribary, 26 May. 2019. Web. 07 May. 2024. < https://afribary.com/works/retention-of-conventional-gic-versus-rm-gic-restorations-october-11-2015 >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Retention of conventional GIC versus RM-GIC restorations [October 11, 2015]" Afribary (2019). Accessed May 07, 2024. https://afribary.com/works/retention-of-conventional-gic-versus-rm-gic-restorations-october-11-2015