evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

6 questions · 10 findings · 2 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 10 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.5%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, but the evidence is of low quality (single high-risk-of-bias split-mouth RCT; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Metal-reinforced GIC had a high annual failure rate (29.9%) in a single RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy)

Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

3 findings from 1 review

Conventional GIC vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Conventional GIC had an annual failure rate of 7.6-16.6% (2 RCTs) and failed more than amalgam in one trial; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam vs Preformed metal crown (PMC)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.4%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, lower than amalgam in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review