What do systematic reviews say?

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

Intervention not reported

• Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes

  MTA vs CH, 3 months (El-Meligy 2006)
  no estimate extracted
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes

  MTA vs CH (El-Meligy 2006)
  no estimate extracted
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes

  MTA vs CH (Ozgur 2017)
  no estimate extracted
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes

  MTA vs CH, 18 and 24 months (Ozgur 2017)
  no estimate extracted
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Intervention not reported

• Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review and… 2018 All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported