Conventional restorative treatment with compomer vs Other network treatments: Treatment success rate
CRT with compomer ranked first for treatment success in the occlusal-surface network (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional restorative treatment with compomer vs Other network treatments Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusal surfaces · Various follow-up times, Various, Occlusal surface without reported lesion depth CRT with compomer ranked first for treatment success in the occlusal-surface network (low certainty). Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review… (2018) All outcomes | RANK 1 | 5 studies | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. 2018 All outcomes | December 14, 2017 | 15 | Low / Critically 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.
- A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach:… · 2006 · included by 1 of these review
- Survival of glass ionomer restorations placed in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) and conventional cavity… · 2004 · included by 1 of these review
- The atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) approach to restoring primary teeth in a standard dental clinic. · 2003 · included by 1 of these review
- Effectiveness of glass-ionomer (ART) and amalgam restorations in the deciduous dentition: results after 3 years. · 2002 · included by 1 of these review
- One-year evaluation of atraumatic restorative treatment and minimum intervention techniques on primary teeth. · 2002 · 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.