Amalgam vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC): Restoration failure
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth
- Intervention
- Amalgam
- Comparison
- Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)
- Outcome
- Restoration failure
No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates favored resin-modified GIC.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Amalgam vs Resin-modified GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Not reported, Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates favored resin-modified GIC. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 28.0%; RMGIC 16.9% | 1 study · 120 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 |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Amalgam vs Conventional GIC · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 review
- Amalgam vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 review
- Amalgam vs Resin composite restoration · Children with carious primary 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.
- Dutta et al. 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.