Same question across reviews · CL0213

intervention :: Operative/pulp treatment -> Restoration survival/failure

ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
6
Questions
13
current versions
GRADE rated
0
Review overlap (CCA)
0.011
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
QuestionEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 1 year, Composite post (CP) arm
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022)
Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.31 study · 54 participantsUngraded
Preformed metal crowns vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement plus composite resin
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 2 years
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022)
Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.51 study · 87 participantsUngraded
Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)
Crown retention · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration · 6 months
Zirconia Crowns for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. (2022)
RR 1.02 [0.94, 1.11]3 studies · 201 participantsUngraded
Hall-technique preformed metal crown vs Non-restorative caries treatment and compomer
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2.5 years, Class II
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022)
Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7%1 study · 169 participantsUngraded
Zirconia crown vs Composite strip crown
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Primary incisors
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022)
Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0%1 study · 32 participantsUngraded
Hall Technique preformed metal crowns vs Conventional restorations (amalgam, GIC, composite)
Restoration failure · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars · 1-5 years
Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022)
3% (HT) vs 37% (control)1 studyUngraded
Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)
Crown retention · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration · 12 months
Zirconia Crowns for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses. (2022)
RR 1.00 [0.94, 1.05]3 studies · 156 participantsUngraded
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns
Marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 24 months, Mesial to crown
Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane
MD -0.01 [-0.93, 0.91]1 study · 18 participantsUngraded
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns
Marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 12 months, Mesial to crown
Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane
MD -0.03 [-0.42, 0.36]1 study · 18 participantsUngraded
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns
Marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 24 months, Distal to crown
Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane
MD -0.18 [-0.89, 0.53]1 study · 18 participantsUngraded
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns
Marginal bone level (first bone to implant contact, FBIC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 12 months, Distal to crown
Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane
MD 0.09 [-0.28, 0.46]1 study · 18 participantsUngraded
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns
Restoration failure at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic… · 6 months
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (2009) · Cochrane
OR 3.29 [0.12, 89.81]1 study · 22 participantsUngraded
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns
Marginal integrity at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic… · 6 months
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (2009) · Cochrane
Marginal integrity at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation.1 study · 22 participantsUngraded

Filter these questions further