Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer: Restoration failure
- Population
- Children with carious primary teeth
- Intervention
- Conventional GIC
- Comparison
- Compomer and glass carbomer
- Outcome
- Restoration failure
No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, School setting, ART; Class I and II No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer. Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) All outcomes | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 17.5%; compomer 17.5%; glass carbomer 28.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 568 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 primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review. 2022 All outcomes | December 28, 2020 | 53 | Low / Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Conventional GIC vs Metal-reinforced GIC · Children with carious primary teeth · 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.
- Olegario et al. 2019 · 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.