## 3 Results
### Results of Individual Studies  
The studies showed conflicting results when comparing conventional GICs with RMGICs with regards to microleakage. Although no statistically significant differences were found in numerous studies [27; 40; 43; 46; 51], the results of most studies showed that RMGICs exhibited less leakage than conventional GICs [39; 41; 43; 48; 49; 50; 52]. Only two studies showed that conventional GICs had lower microleakage scores than RMGICs [43; 51]. The included studies agreed that the most significant leakage was observed at the gingival margin compared to the occlusal margin [47; 48; 49; 52], which was also significantly higher on dentin/cement than on enamel margins [27; 44].  
In primary teeth, RMGIC (Fuji II LC and Ketac N100) showed less microleakage than conventional GIC (Fuji II, Fuji IX, and Ketac Molar Easymix) [39; 40; 41]. However, it is noteworthy that in one study [43], conventional Fuji IX exhibited slightly better results than Fuji II LC and Ketac N100, although the findings were not statistically significant. Also, one study on hybrid GIC (Equia Forte with Equia Coat) showed a significant reduction in microleakage compared to Fuji II LC and Fuji IX [39].  
In permanent teeth, two studies showed that Ketac N100 exhibited less leakage, performed better than conventional GICs and RMGICs, and was more consistent in Class I and Class V cavities [45; 47]. However, in one study, non-significant results were obtained compared to conventional GIC Fuji IX in Class I cavities [46]. Likewise, non-statistically significant differences were observed when comparing Activa Bioactive Restorative (RMIGC) to conventional GIC Equia Fil and RMGIC Fuji II LC with coating material G-Coat Plus [27]. Only one study comparing Zirconomer Improved GIC, conventional GIC, and glass carpomer showed that Zirconomer Improved and conventional GIC exhibited better results than glass carbomer [44].  
Different methods for caries removal, like chemomechanical agents, air abrasion, and Er:YAG lasers, were also assessed in the included studies. The results of one study demonstrated no significant difference in microleakage between conventional GIC and Ketac N100 following conventional and chemomechanical caries removal methods [46]. Er:YAG laser irradiation was evaluated in three studies. In one study, after root caries removal, lower microleakage was observed in cavities prepared with a laser when combined with RMGIC restorative materials [50]. Two studies on Class V cavities restored with conventional GICs and RMGICs following conventional bur preparation and Er:YAG laser irradiation found that RMGICs showed less microleakage than GICs, regardless of the preparation method [48; 49]. One study on cavities prepared with aluminum oxide air  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline
**Coat** & **Manufacturer** & **Studies** \\ \hline Icon & DMG Dental Milestones Guaranteed & [PERSON] et al., 2021 [40] \\ \hline GC Fuji Varnish II & GC Corporation & [PERSON] et al., 2021 [40]; \\  & [PERSON] et al., 2012 [47] \\ \hline \multicolumn{2}{l}{Carisolv system} & Swedish Medi Team & [PERSON] et al., 2014 [46] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 5: _Cont._abrasion observed that conventional GIC and RMGIC used as restorative materials had similar behavior [51].