Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,085 questions · 1,232 findings · 66 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 218 · 17.7%GRADE not reported 745 · 60.5%Very low 179 · 14.5%Low 65 · 5.3%Moderate 25 · 2%High 0 · 0%

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

Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dentine-bonded resin composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether dentine-bonded resin composite changes success rate at 1 year (root as unit, per-protocol analysis) compared with glass ionomer cement (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)

Treatment success rate · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in success rate at 4 years compared with super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Root repair material (RRM)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with root repair material (RRM) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Intermediate restorative material (IRM)

Success rate (radiographically‐assessed healing of cyst healing based on the Neer/Cole rating system) · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in success rate at 2 years compared with intermediate restorative material (IRM); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA)

Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible; periapical surgery…

It is very uncertain whether mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) changes success rate at 1 year compared with super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super-EBA) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review