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%.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; etch-and-rinse had a higher tabulated failure rate.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; glass carbomer had the highest tabulated failure range.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; metal-reinforced GIC had the highest failure rate.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review states cavity conditioner did not improve success.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.
No comparative effect estimate was reported; bilayer placement and nanofilled coating were described as improving survival.