Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP): Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
- Population
- Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy)
- Intervention
- Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen)
- Comparison
- Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP)
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, University, Iran (Eshghi et al. 2013), Composite post (CP) arm Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) All outcomes | AFR 2.3 | 1 study · 54 participants | GRADE not reported |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, University, Iran (Eshghi et al. 2013), Fibre post (FP) arm Composite strip crowns with fibre posts had a low annual failure rate (2.2%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) All outcomes | AFR 2.2 | 1 study · 54 participants | GRADE not reported |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, University, Iran (Eshghi et al. 2013), Reverse metal post (RMP) arm Composite strip crowns with reverse metal posts had the lowest annual failure rate (0%) among the three post types in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated). Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) All outcomes | AFR 0 | 1 study · 54 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 lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review. 2022 All outcomes | December 28, 2020 | 5 | 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.
- Eshghi et al. 2013 · 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.