Conventional GIC vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC: 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
- Conventional GIC
- Comparison
- Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
Conventional GIC had an annual failure rate of 7.6-16.6% (2 RCTs) and failed more than amalgam in one trial; low quality of evidence (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC 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 (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean), University and unreported settings (UK) Conventional GIC had an annual failure rate of 7.6-16.6% (2 RCTs) and failed more than amalgam in one trial; 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 (%) 7.6-16.6% | 2 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.
- Alaki 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.