No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates favored resin-modified GIC.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; the 7-second etching arm had a lower tabulated failure rate.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure rates were tabulated.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; composite resin outperformed HVGIC in the review narrative.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure rates were tabulated.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; cavity disinfectant did not affect success in the review narrative.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; conventional GIC had a higher tabulated failure rate.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described similar clinical performance.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; compomer had more favorable retention in the review narrative.
No eligible randomized clinical trials of bio-active restorative materials were found.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 1.7% failure.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated by arm.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described comparable survival.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; no bevel had twice the failure rate in the review narrative.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 3.3% and 15%.