Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type: Restoration failure
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy
- Intervention
- Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts
- Comparison
- Alternative post type
- Outcome
- Restoration failure
In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 1 year, University, Iran, Composite post (CP) arm In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.3 | 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.
- Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns · 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.