Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin composite restoration: Secondary caries
- Population
- Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth
- Intervention
- Compomer (Dyract)
- Comparison
- Resin composite restoration
- Outcome
- Secondary caries
In deciduous teeth at 1 year, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and resin composite, with high heterogeneity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02-8.34; I2=83%; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Compomer vs Resin composite (RC) Secondary caries (occurrence) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 1 year of follow-up, Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries, Compomer In deciduous teeth at 1 year, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and resin composite, with high heterogeneity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02-8.34; I2=83%; ungraded). Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review… (2023) All outcomes | RR 0.41 [0.02, 8.34] | 2 studies · 250 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. 2023 All outcomes | Not specified (search date reported only in Supplementary Table S1) | 63 | Low / Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin) · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the… · 1 review
- Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth · 1 review
- Compomer (Dyract) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC) · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth · 1 review
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.
- Clinical evaluation of composite and compomer restorations in primary teeth: 24-month results. · 2006 · included by 1 of these review
- Three-year follow up assessment of Class II restorations in primary molars with a polyacid-modified composite resin and a hybrid composite. · 2001 · 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.