Question · asked by 1 review

Amalgam vs Preformed metal crown (PMC): Treatment failure (annual failure rate)

Population
Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)
Intervention
Amalgam
Comparison
Preformed metal crown (PMC)
Outcome
Treatment failure (annual failure rate)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.4%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, lower than amalgam in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

What each review found

Current versions only
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC)
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, University, Turkey (Sonmez and Duruturk 2010), Preformed metal crown (PMC) arm
Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.4%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, lower than amalgam in the same trial (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 2.41 study · 83 participantsGRADE not reported
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC)
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, University, Turkey (Sonmez and Duruturk 2010), Amalgam (A) arm
Amalgam had the highest annual failure rate (14.3%) among restorations in primary molars after pulpotomy (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 14.31 study · 83 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

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.

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.