## 3 Results
### Study Characteristics
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l} \hline
**GI** & **Manufacturer** & **Composition** & **Studies** \\ \hline  & & & Alwan and Al-Waheb 2021 [39]; \\  & & [PERSON] et al., 2021 [40]; \\  & & Powder: FAS glass. & [PERSON] et al., 2019 [27]; \\  & & Liquid: polyacrylic acid, 2-HEMA & [PERSON] et al., 2018 [41]; \\  & & (hydroxylethyl methacrylate; 30–35\%), & [PERSON] et al., 2014 [45]; \\  & & bicarbonate, and proprietary ingredient. & [PERSON] et al., 2014 [43]; \\  & & & [PERSON] et al., 2008 [48]; \\  & & & [PERSON] et al., 2005 [51]; \\  & & Hallett and Garcia-Godoy 1993 [52] \\ \hline Hybrid glass ionomer & & Powder: 95\% strontium & \\  & & fluoroaluminosilicate glass, highly reactive & [PERSON] and Al-Waheb \\  & & small particles, and 5\% polyacrylic acid. & 2021 [39] \\  & & Liquid: 40\% aqueous polyacrylic acid. & \\ \hline  & & 2-HEMA (25–50\%); tartaric acid (5–10\%); \\  & & 7,7,9(or 7,9,9)-trimethyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14- \\  & & & dioxa-5,12-diazhexadecane-1,16-diyl \\  & & bismethacrylate 1–5\%; and 2-hydroxy-1,3 \\  & & dimethacryloxyp propane (1–5\%). & \\ \hline  & & Powder: fluoroaluminosilicate powder. \\  & & Contains pigmentations. \\  & & Liquid: polycarboxylic acid modified with \\  & & a methacrylate group. \\ \hline  & & Polyethylene polycarbonate acid, \\  & & 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate, water, and \\  & & diurethane dimethacrylate. \\ \hline  & & Primer: water (40–50\%); HEMA (35–45\%), \\  & & acrylic/itaconic acid copolymer (10–15\%), \\  & & and photo-iniciators. \\ Ketac N100 & & \\ Nano RMGIC & 3M ESPE & Ketac(tm) N100: de-ionized water, \\  & & HEMA, vitrebond \\  & & copolymer/methacrylate-modified \\  & & polyalkenoic acid, fluoraluminosilicate \\  & & glass, nanomers, and nanoclusters. \\ \hline  & & Powder: diurethane dimethacrylate, bis \\  & & (2-(methoxyloxy) ethyl) phosphate, \\  & & barium glass, ionomer glass, sodium \\  & & fluoride, and colorants. \\  & & Liquid: polyacrylic acid/maleic \\  & & acid copolymer. \\ \hline  & & \\ Glass carbomer: & & Powder: fluoroaluminosilicate \\ Glass Fill & & glass and apatite. \\  & & Liquid: polyacrylic acids and silica. \\ \hline  & & \\ Zirconia GIC: & & Powder: fluoroaluminosilicate glass, \\  & & zirconium oxide, pigment, etc. \\  & & Liquid: polyacrylic acid and tartaric acid. \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 4: Commercially available RMGICs evaluated in the included studies. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l} \hline
**Coat** & **Manufacturer** & **Studies** \\ \hline Vitremer finishing gloss & 3M ESPE & [PERSON] et al., 2005 [51] \\ \hline GC Fuji Coat LC & GC Corporation & [PERSON] et al., 2008 [48] \\ \hline Ketac Primer & 3M ESPE & [PERSON] et al., 2014 [43] \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Other commercially available dental materials evaluated in the included studies. Various methods are used to evaluate the microleakage of GIC restorative materials. These include using the following dyes: 2% methylene blue [27; 39; 43; 48; 49; 50], 0.5% methylene blue [42], 2% basic fuchsin [41; 52], 0.5% basic fuchsin [44; 46], rhodamine B [47; 51], and acridine dye [45]. The studies used various methods to assess microleakage; in some, a score number between 0-4 [39; 42; 43; 44; 45], 0-3 [46; 47; 50; 52], and 1-4 [27] was assigned; in others, quantitative assessment of dye penetration in millimeters was expressed as a percentage of the total length of the restorative interface in three studies [48; 49; 51]. SEM was employed in three studies for morphological analysis of cavities prepared by Er:YAG laser irradiation [48; 49; 50]. Additionally, SEM was utilized in one study to evaluate marginal gap formation and analyze the adhesion mechanism [52].