Same question across reviews · CL0252
intervention :: Restorative materials -> Other outcome
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
15
Questions
64
current versions
GRADE rated
14
Review overlap (CCA)
0.007
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after 7-14 days vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Permanent restoration after 7-14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 73.6 [66.5, 80.7] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with one additional day before permanent restoration vs Partial pulpotomy with one fewer day before permanent restoration Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Per day of restoration delay, Meta-regression Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Meta-regression coefficient (per day, proportion scale) -0.088 | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after more than 14 days vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Permanent restoration after more than 14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 23.2 [13.4, 33.0] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with immediate permanent restoration vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Immediate restoration Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 89.9 [78.5, 99.8] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with immediate (same-visit) permanent restoration vs Partial pulpotomy with delayed permanent restoration (7-14 days or >14 days) Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults (>=18 y) with mature permanent teeth and deep carious pulp exposure · >=1 year, Timing of permanent restoration: immediate vs >14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | MD 66.7 | NR | Ungraded |
Indirect restoration placement by undergraduate students vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Undergraduate students Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.68 [3.17, 8.86] | 1604 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restoration placement by undergraduate students vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · General practitioners Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 4.44 [2.16, 7.49] | 2113 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs Follow-up duration Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · > 5–10 years, > 5–10 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.53 [3.74, 7.64] | 2443 participants | Ungraded |
Ceramic restoration material vs Porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration material Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Ceramic Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.59 [2.89, 9.12] | 460 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs Follow-up duration Periapical pathosis incidence · Vital teeth · > 5–10 years, > 5–10 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 3.88 [1.95, 6.45] | 1864 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · ≤ 5 years, ≤ 5 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 3.53 [2.10, 5.31] | 5532 participants | Low |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Lenzi 2017), Adhesive strategy (etch-and-rinse vs self-etch) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-60 months follow-up (4 trials; 1-5 years) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1-28% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (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) | AFR 2.3 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy… · 36 months, Complete caries removal (CCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 6.8 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with Class-I carious lesions in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Oliveira 2008), Cavity margin (bevel vs no bevel) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Cavalheiro 2020), Dentine etching time (7 s vs 15 s) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches Clinical effectiveness · Children with carious primary teeth · At least 12 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Bio-active restorative materials (containing bio-active compounds) vs Any conventional restorative material Treatment failure (planned; no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | No studies were found that reported on the use of restorative materials containing bio-active compounds for the restoration of carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy. | 0 studies | No studies |
Compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) restoration vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-30 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 0-14.7% | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class · Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy · 12-48 months, Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART) | NR | Ungraded |
Composite resin restoration (hybrid or bulk-fill) vs Compomer, glass-ionomer/RMGIC, amalgam, or glass carbomer Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-48 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9% | 11 studies | Ungraded |
New restorative materials with bio-active molecules (bio-active materials, BM) vs Any restorative material or technique Not applicable (no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth (no pulp therapy) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | The search retrieved no randomized controlled trials on the clinical effectiveness of new bio-active restorative materials for carious primary teeth. | 0 studies | No studies |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Fibre post (FP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.2 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy… · 36 months, Selective caries removal (SCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 17.1 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12 months (El-Housseiny 2019) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) up to 46.2% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Reverse metal post (RMP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 0 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Preformed metal crown (PMC) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.4 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Amalgam (A) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 14.3 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12 months, Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 0.62 [0.21, 1.88] | 2 studies · 204 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12-18 months, Deep lesions, permanent dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 11.32 [1.97, 65.02] | 2 studies · 179 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 6-60 months, Deep lesions, permanent dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 2.06 [1.34, 3.17] | 3 studies · 398 participants | Moderate |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 30-60 months, Cavitated (not deep) lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 8.35 [3.73, 18.68] | 2 studies · 249 participants | Low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 6-36 months, Deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 4.43 [1.04, 18.77] | 4 studies · 265 participants | Very low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms: allergic reaction · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible studies that evaluated allergic reaction or injury (no studies reported on outcomes of relevance to allergic reaction). | 0 studies | No studies |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Fracture of restorations · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 5 to 7 years Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.87 [0.46, 1.64] | 2 studies · 921 participants | Low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms: injury · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible studies that evaluated allergic reaction or injury (no studies reported on outcomes of relevance to injury). | 0 studies | No studies |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12 months, Deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 2.43 [0.65, 9.12] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 30 months, Cavitated lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 1.16 [0.5, 2.71] | 1 study · 102 participants | Very low |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.901 [0.845, 0.938] | 24 studies | Ungraded |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.876 [0.817, 0.919] | 29 (24 observed + 5 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Survival of the restoration · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Mean 24 months Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane | Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low |
Intermediate restorative material (IRM) root-end filling vs SuperEBA Healing - 1 year or longer · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year or longer Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.11 [0.99, 1.24] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low |
Intermediate restorative material (IRM) root-end filling vs Gutta-percha Healing - 1 year or longer · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year or longer Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.92 [0.80, 1.05] | 1 study · 147 participants | Very low |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Perioperative or postoperative pain or discomfort · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Further restoration required (repair, restoration, placement of crown/inlay, root filling) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |