Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

3 questions · 3 findings · 1 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 3 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 16% failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes
2 years · University · Class II
Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 8.4%; composite resin 8.4%
1 study · 55 participants
GRADE not reported

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Compomer and composite resin

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated by arm.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes
4 years · University · Class I and II
Annual failure rate (%) compomer 4.2%; RMGIC 7.3%; composite resin 6.9%
1 study · 48 participants
GRADE not reported

Nanoionomer resin-modified GIC vs HVGIC

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes
1 year · University · ART; Class I
Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 2.0%; HVGIC 12.8%
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported