Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator: Anatomic form success rate
The pooled 24-month anatomic form success rate was 0.901 (95% CI 0.845-0.938; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months The pooled 24-month anatomic form success rate was 0.901 (95% CI 0.845-0.938; ungraded). Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) All outcomes | Proportion 0.901 [0.845, 0.938] | 24 studies | GRADE not reported |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) After trim-and-fill adjustment the anatomic form success rate was 0.876 (95% CI 0.817-0.919; ungraded), a negligible change. Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) All outcomes | Proportion 0.876 [0.817, 0.919] | 29 (24 observed + 5 imputed) studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes | May 2019 (search covered 1985 to May 2019) | 17 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
None of these reviews ties its included studies to this outcome in the data here. Cochrane reviews and reviews with headline outcomes only do not list their studies yet.
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.