Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

175 questions · 246 findings · 11 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

No studies found 7 · 2.8%GRADE not reported 216 · 87.8%Very low 8 · 3.3%Low 9 · 3.7%Moderate 5 · 2%High 1 · 0.4%

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 16% failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy (full or partial) vs None (single-arm pooled success proportion)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

In asymptomatic irreversible pulpitis, pooled pulpotomy success was 91.3% (95% CI 80-96.5%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

Biodentine had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than CEM (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Pulpotomy with Calcium Enriched Mixture (CEM)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

MTA and CEM did not differ significantly in pulpotomy success (indirect comparison); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the 7-second etching arm had a lower tabulated failure rate.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulpotomy with Biodentine vs Pulpotomy with calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Human permanent teeth with irreversible pulpitis due to carious pulp exposure

Biodentine had a significantly higher pulpotomy success rate than calcium hydroxide (indirect comparison; numeric estimate not available); 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

HVGIC Fuji IX Gold Label vs HVGIC Vitro Molar and Maxxion R

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated.

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy only if pulp exposed…

Complete caries removal with composite resin had an annual failure rate of 6.8% in primary molars (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, preformed metal crowns had an annual failure rate of 2.5% after 2 years.

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

Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer.

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

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; composite resin outperformed HVGIC in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.5%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, but the evidence is of low quality (single high-risk-of-bias split-mouth RCT; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

HVGIC with chlorhexidine cavity disinfectant vs HVGIC without cavity disinfectant

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cavity disinfectant did not affect success in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review