Question · asked by 1 review
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches: Clinical effectiveness
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth
- Intervention
- Bio-active restorative materials
- Comparison
- Other restorative approaches
- Outcome
- Clinical effectiveness
No eligible randomized clinical trials of bio-active restorative materials were found.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches Clinical effectiveness · Children with carious primary teeth · At least 12 months No eligible randomized clinical trials of bio-active restorative materials were found. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies found |
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 |
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.