Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

237 questions · 355 findings · 28 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 26 · 7.3%GRADE not reported 273 · 76.9%Very low 39 · 11%Low 13 · 3.7%Moderate 4 · 1.1%High 0 · 0%

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

The pooled 24-month anatomic form success rate was 0.901 (95% CI 0.845-0.938; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Absence of recurrent caries success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

After trim-and-fill adjustment the absence-of-recurrent-caries success rate was 0.878 (95% CI 0.828-0.915; ungraded), a negligible change.

2 findings from 1 review

Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration

Composite: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin · Dentists managing a defective direct resin composite restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old,…

For a defective composite restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 3.93; p < 0.001); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Replacement of the defective restoration vs Repair of the defective restoration

Amalgam: Preference for replacement over repair - Scenario 5: open margin · Dentists managing a defective direct amalgam restoration (posterior occlusal Class I; standardized vignette of a 30-year-old,…

For a defective amalgam restoration with open margin, surveyed dentists most often preferred replacement over repair (pooled RR 5.14; p < 0.001); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review