Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration: Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy
- Intervention
- Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration
- Comparison
- Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class
Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); low quality of evidence (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
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, Mixed (mainly ART school/university studies), Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II) Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); 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 (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART) | Not reported | 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.
- Gok Baba et al. 2021 · 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.