Question · asked by 1 review
HVGIC Vitro Molar vs HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix: Restoration failure
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth
- Intervention
- HVGIC Vitro Molar
- Comparison
- HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix
- Outcome
- Restoration failure
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
HVGIC Vitro Molar vs HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 4 years, University, ART; Class I No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (%) Vitro Molar 3.5%; Ketac Molar Easymix 5.8% | 1 study · 25 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 |
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.
- Faustino-Silva and Figueiredo 2019 · 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.