Search result: There is a lack of clinical studies to this topic: Only three clinical trials were found and traced.
Clinical outcomes: The results are conflicting or suggest no difference between conventional GIC and Compomers in regard to their anticariogenic effects.
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). Cariostatic effect of conventional GIC versus compomers [October 03, 2015]. Afribary. Retrieved from https://tracking.afribary.com/works/cariostatic-effect-of-conventional-gic-versus-compomers-october-03-2015
Mickenautsch, Steffen "Cariostatic effect of conventional GIC versus compomers [October 03, 2015]" Afribary. Afribary, 26 May. 2019, https://tracking.afribary.com/works/cariostatic-effect-of-conventional-gic-versus-compomers-october-03-2015. Accessed 21 Nov. 2024.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Cariostatic effect of conventional GIC versus compomers [October 03, 2015]". Afribary, Afribary, 26 May. 2019. Web. 21 Nov. 2024. < https://tracking.afribary.com/works/cariostatic-effect-of-conventional-gic-versus-compomers-october-03-2015 >.
Mickenautsch, Steffen . "Cariostatic effect of conventional GIC versus compomers [October 03, 2015]" Afribary (2019). Accessed November 21, 2024. https://tracking.afribary.com/works/cariostatic-effect-of-conventional-gic-versus-compomers-october-03-2015