Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

120 questions · 126 findings · 6 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

No studies found 21 · 16.7%GRADE not reported 78 · 61.9%Very low 16 · 12.7%Low 11 · 8.7%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

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

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

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

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

Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Etching dentine for 7 s rather than 15 s lowered bulk-fill composite failure (5.8% vs 16.9% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp therapy

Zirconia crowns failed less than composite strip crowns (3.3% vs 15% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding 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

Compomer (C) vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management

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

Compomer had an annual failure rate of 0-14.7% (7 RCTs), comparable to amalgam/RMGIC/composite and better than high-viscosity GIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding 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

Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class · Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy

Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); 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 resin vs Compomer, glass-ionomer/RMGIC, amalgam, 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

Composite resin (hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9%) performed comparably to or better than most alternatives across 11 RCTs; evidence is of low to unclear quality (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bio-active restorative materials vs Any restorative material or technique

Not applicable (no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth (no pulp therapy)

No eligible RCTs assessed new bio-active restorative materials in carious primary teeth; this is an evidence gap identified by the review.

1 finding from 1 review

Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC

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

Glass carbomer had very high failure rates (up to 46.2%) in a single RCT, far worse than composite resin or RMGIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review