Question · asked by 1 review

Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin): Restoration failure

Population
Children with carious primary teeth
Intervention
Flowable bulk-fill composite resin
Comparison
Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)
Outcome
Restoration failure

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Compomer
Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Private dental practice, Class II
No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes
Annual failure rate (%) compomer 0%; bulk-fill composite resin 0%1 study · 32 participantsGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

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.

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.