High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC: Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
- Population
- Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
- Intervention
- High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach)
- Comparison
- Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-36 months, University and private-practice settings (Turkey, Israel) High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (%) 2.9-25.6% | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review. 2022 All outcomes | December 28, 2020 | 53 | Low / Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Cavalheiro et al. 2020 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.