What do systematic reviews say?

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin composite restoration

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 1.7% failure.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · University · Class I, II, III, and V
  Annual failure rate (%) compomer 1.7%; composite resin 1.7%
  1 study · 36 participants
  GRADE not reported

ART/HAART duration <3 years vs ART/HAART duration >=3 years

Oral candidiasis prevalence differed by ART duration (OR 17.93, 95% CI 3.69 to 83.12).

• Oral Health Status of Children and Adolescents Living with HIV Undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review… 2022 All outcomes

  Cross-sectional (case-control; single time point) · HIV pediatric/ART clinics, AIDS centers, and hospitals in Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, and West Africa (Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Senegal) · ART/HAART duration <3 years vs >=3 years
  OR 17.93 [3.69, 83.12]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

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

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

• 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

Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · Private dental practice · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) compomer 0%; bulk-fill composite resin 0%
  1 study · 32 participants
  GRADE not reported

Compomer (C) vs Colored compomer

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described comparable survival.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · Not reported · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) Compoglass F 4.3%; Twinky Star 7.0%
  1 study · 98 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

No comparative effect estimate was reported; no bevel had twice the failure rate in the review narrative.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1.5 years · University · Class I
  Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5%
  1 study · 32 participants
  GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  2.5 years · University · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7%
  1 study · 169 participants
  GRADE not reported

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Composite strip crown

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 3.3% and 15%.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · University · Primary incisors
  Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0%
  1 study · 32 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

No comparative effect estimate was reported; etch-and-rinse had a higher tabulated failure rate.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1.5 years · University
  Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0%
  1 study · 44 participants
  GRADE not reported

Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins

No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · University · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0%
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Glass carbomer vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

No comparative effect estimate was reported; glass carbomer had the highest tabulated failure range.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · University · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 1.9-7.5%; glass carbomer 5.8-46.2%; composite resin 2.1%
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

Conventional GIC vs Metal-reinforced GIC

No comparative effect estimate was reported; metal-reinforced GIC had the highest failure rate.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1.5 years · Not reported · Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) GIC 16.6%; MRGIC 29.9%
  1 study · 37 participants
  GRADE not reported

GIC with cavity conditioner vs GIC without cavity conditioner

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review states cavity conditioner did not improve success.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  1 year · School setting · ART; Class I
  Annual failure rate (%) with conditioner 26%; without conditioner 33%
  1 study · 96 participants
  GRADE not reported

HVGIC Vitro Molar vs HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix

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

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  4 years · University · ART; Class I
  Annual failure rate (%) Vitro Molar 3.5%; Ketac Molar Easymix 5.8%
  1 study · 25 participants
  GRADE not reported

HVGIC bilayer insertion and surface coating protocols vs Alternative HVGIC insertion and surface coating protocols

No comparative effect estimate was reported; bilayer placement and nanofilled coating were described as improving survival.

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  3 years · School setting · ART; Class II
  Annual failure rate (%) 32.4%, 13.7%, 18.7%, 13.4% by insertion/coating arm
  1 study · 208 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To 6 months
  Baysan 2003 stated that no adverse events were reported to 6 months; no information was provided by Abu-Naba'a 2003 or Abu-Naba'a 2003pilot.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Abu-Naba'a 2003 reported participants' state of anxiety, comparing ozone treatment with traditional dental interventions (injection, drilling, filling); because no participant was randomised between ozone and drilling…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Data were not provided by any study on the number of lesions requiring restorations to 6 months or later; no data on any further conventional treatment or other dental interventions.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on costs.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on pain.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found