Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC: 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
- Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling)
- Comparison
- Composite resin or RMGIC
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
Glass carbomer had very high failure rates (up to 46.2%) in a single RCT, far worse than composite resin or RMGIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
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), University (Saudi Arabia) Glass carbomer had very high failure rates (up to 46.2%) in a single RCT, far worse than composite resin or RMGIC; 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 (%) up to 46.2% | 1 study · 50 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 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.
- Deepa and Shobha 2010 · 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.