Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

828 questions · 1,007 findings · 63 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 110 · 10.9%GRADE not reported 709 · 70.4%Very low 84 · 8.3%Low 70 · 7%Moderate 33 · 3.3%High 1 · 0.1%

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in mature permanent teeth

In mature teeth, MTA probably achieves higher clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide (OR 3.34, 95% CI 1.81-6.17; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing direct pulp capping

MTA increases clinical and radiographic success versus CH after direct pulp capping (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

MTA achieved higher clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide overall (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.96-4.49; low certainty), but this unadjusted estimate pools clinically heterogeneous DPC and pulpotomy studies.

1 finding from 1 review

Calcium hydroxide (CH) vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Continued root formation / root development · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth (predominantly immature) undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

Evidence on continued root formation for calcium hydroxide versus MTA is weak and inconclusive (3 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth with mixed root development

The effect of MTA versus CH in teeth with mixed root development is very uncertain (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Biodentine vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

MTA and Biodentine performed comparably for clinical and radiographic success (5 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in mature permanent teeth

MTA increases clinical and radiographic success versus CH in mature teeth (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, selective caries removal had a 3.44 higher probability of failure than complete caries removal.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, or glass carbomer

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

RMGIC had an annual failure rate of 1.9-16.9% (4 RCTs), lower than amalgam and similar to compomer/composite; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (C) vs Resin composite restoration

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

Compomer restorations had an annual failure rate of 8.9% in primary molars after pulpotomy, higher than composite resin in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite resin had an annual failure rate of 0% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Etch-and-rinse adhesion failed more than self-etch (19.5% vs 7.0% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators)

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

Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; 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

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC

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

High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy only if pulp exposed…

Complete caries removal with composite resin had an annual failure rate of 6.8% in primary molars (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

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

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, preformed metal crowns had an annual failure rate of 2.5% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with Class-I carious lesions in primary molars, no pulp therapy

A beveled margin lowered composite resin failure (1.8% vs 3.5% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no pulp therapy

ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review