## 3 Results
### Study Characteristics
+++ ==ERROR: No output for this page==
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & & (b) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Author/Year**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Glass Ionomer/Other**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Sample**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Groups**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Microleakage**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Main Outcome**} \\  & & & **Characteristics and** & & **Values** & \\  & & & & & **Technique and** & \\  & & & & & **Values** & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{[PERSON] et al., 2012} & GIC: Fuj II + & 45 sound molars & G1. Fuji II + & Microleakage \% & \\  & Fuji Varnish & 3 groups (n = 15) & GC Fuji Varnish & G1. 2.0\%/C2. & \\  & India & RGI: Fuji Varnish & G2. Fuji II LC + & G2. Fuji II LC + & 13.3\%/G3. 33.3\%/ & \\
[47] & Non-filled RMGIC: & Class V (5 \(\times\) 3 \(\times\) 2 & GC Fuji Varnish & \(p\) = 0.464 & \\  & Ketac N100 & \multirow{2}{*}{Nanc-filled RMGIC:} & mm depth) on the & G3. Ketac N100 & Gingival margins: \\  & & & & G1.00\%/C2. & \\  & & & & 93.3\%/G3. 60\%/ & \\  & & & & \(p\leq 0.05\) & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{GIC: Fuji II} & \multirow{4}{*}{} & \multirow{4}{*}{} & 2\% methylene blue & \\  & & & \begin{table}  
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._All the included studies were in vitro studies published between 1993 and 2021. Of them, 1 study was conducted in Turkey [44], 1 in the USA [52], 1 in Egypt [27], 1 in Iraq [39], 1 in Indonesia [43], 2 in Belgium [48; 49], 3 in Brazil [42; 50; 51] and 5 in India [40; 41; 45; 46; 47]. The sample size varied from 15 to 200 teeth; a total of 1159 teeth were evaluated. The number of assessed samples in each subgroup ranged from 5 to 30 cavities. In all studies, [PERSON]'s cavity classification was reported [53]. The prepared cavities were classified as Class V except in two studies, where Class I was also used [45; 46], and in one study, where the authors performed restorations of bacterial artificial root caries [50]. The selected  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & & (**b**) & & \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{**Author/Year**} & **Glass** & **Sample** & & **Microleakage** & \\  & **Ionomer/Other** & **Characteristics** & **Groups** & **Technique and** & **Main Outcome** \\  & **Materials** & **and Cavity Size** & & **Values** & **Measures** \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] et al., \\ 2006 \\ Brazil \\ [50] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} Artificial root \\ caries were \\ induced using a \\ microbiological \\ model \\ (Streptococcus \\ mutants) \\ \end{tabular}  } & 45 molars and & CCR & 2\% methylene blue & RMGIC showed & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} MRGIC showed \\ less microleakage \\ than GIC, \\ \end{tabular}  } \\  & & & & (score 0-3) & less microleakage \\  & & & Conventional & G2. Vitremer & Mean scores: & than GIC, \\  & & & caries removal & Er:YAG laser & G1. 2.5 & independently of \\  & & & (CCR) (n = 15) & G3. Ketac Fil Plus & G2. 3 & the caries removal \\  & & & Er:YAG caries & G4. Vitremer & G3. 3 & technique used. \\  & & & removal (n = 15) & Er:YAG caries & G4. 0.7 & Lower \\  & & & Er:YAG caries & removal + dentin & G5. 2.7 & microleakage \\  & & & removal + dentin & conditioner & G6. 1.5 & scores were \\  & & & conditioned (n = 15) & G5. Ketac Fil Plus & \(p\) \textless\(0.05\) & observed in \\  & & & & G6. Vitremer & & cavities prepared \\  & & & & with a laser when \\  & & & & combined with \\  & & & microleakage & & restoration by \\  & & & & RMGIC. \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} [PERSON] et al., \\ 2005 \\ Brazil \\ [51] \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{ \begin{tabular}{c} GIC: Ketac Fil \\ RMGIC: Vitremer \\ RMGIC: Fuji II LLC \\ Aluminum oxide \\ air-abrasion device \\ for cavity \\ preparation \\ \end{tabular}  } & \multirow{4}{*}{\ \begin{tabular}{c} Class V (3 \(\times\) 3 \(\times\) 3 \(\times\) \\ 1.5 mm depth) the \\ occlusal margin in \\ enamel and the \\ cervical margin \\ located 1 mm \\ \end{tabular}