Compomer (C) vs Resin composite restoration: Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
- Population
- Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)
- Intervention
- Compomer (C)
- Comparison
- Resin composite restoration
- Outcome
- Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
Compomer restorations had an annual failure rate of 8.9% in primary molars after pulpotomy, higher than composite resin in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, Turkey (Cehreli et al. 2006), Compomer (C) arm Compomer restorations had an annual failure rate of 8.9% in primary molars after pulpotomy, higher than composite resin 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 8.9 | 1 study · 84 participants | GRADE not reported |
Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 2 years, Turkey (Cehreli et al. 2006), Composite resin (CR) arm Composite resin restorations had an annual failure rate of 0% 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 0 | 1 study · 84 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 |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Compomer (C) vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp… · 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.
- Cehreli et al. 2006 · 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.