Cochrane · intervention · CD004483
Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2009 · Cochrane Library
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.
Questions
15
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
2
Included studies
3
as reported
No studies 2 · 13.3%Ungraded 13 · 86.7%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free | Children needing Class II restorations or primary-molar crowns across 3 split-mouth trials (81 restoration pairs total): Donly 1999 (40 pairs, age 6-9 y); Marks 1999a (30 pairs, age 4-9 y); Fuks 1999 (11 pairs of crowns) |
| Intervention | Restorative materials for Classes I-V cavities and the atraumatic restorative technique (ART): metal (silver amalgam); glass-ionomers (traditional GIC, glass-ionomer silver-cermet cement, resin-modified GIC); composite resins (light-cure and self-cure); stainless steel crowns (with or without pre-fabricated resin veneer facings); polyacid-modified resin composites (compomers) | Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns (n=11); resin-modified glass ionomer, Vitremer (n=40); compomer, Dyract (n=30) |
| Comparison | A different restorative material; dental extractions; no treatment | Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns (n=11); amalgam (n=70) |
| Outcomes | Primary: pain relief. Secondary: durability (survival months); patient satisfaction with aesthetics; adverse events; marginal integrity; wear and staining; surface changes (texture); secondary caries; weight gain/loss; sleep habits; restoration failure; other clinically important outcomes (e.g. gingival health, occlusion) | Gingival health (n=22); restoration failure (n=82); marginal integrity, occlusal and cervical (n=48); surface texture (n=48); secondary caries (n=48); cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays (n=48); radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays (n=48) |
| Study designs | RCT or quasi-RCT with minimum 6 months follow-up; parallel-group or split-mouth; drop-out less than 30% | Split-mouth RCT/quasi-RCT (n=3) |
| Timing | Minimum 6 months follow-up | 6 months (n=1 study); 12 months (n=1 study); 24 months (n=1 study) |
Search date: 2009-01. Databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE (Ovid); EMBASE; System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (SIGLE); conference proceedings on early childhood caries, restorative materials for paediatric dentistry, and material sciences conferences
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsDental fillings (restorations) vs Dental extractions
Population: Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR Minimum 6 months follow-up | "No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with caries in the primary dentition." | NR | No studies |
Dental fillings (restorations) vs No treatment
Population: Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Outcome NR Minimum 6 months follow-up | "No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with caries in the primary dentition." | NR | No studies |
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns
Population: Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure at 6 months 6 months | OR 3.29 [0.12, 89.81] | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Proximal contact at 6 months 6 months | Proximal contact at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation. | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Occlusion at 6 months 6 months | Occlusion at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation. | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity at 6 months 6 months | Marginal integrity at 6 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at the 6-month evaluation. | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Gingival health at 6 months 6 months | OR 0.30 [0.01, 8.32] | 1 study · 22 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam
Population: Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6-12 months 6-12 months | Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, axial contour, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6 and 12 months: odds ratios not estimable - no events recorded, implying equal performance of the two materials. | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months 12 months | OR 0.64 [0.10, 4.15] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)
Population: Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Secondary caries at 24 months 24 months | OR 3.13 [0.12, 80.68] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months 24 months | OR 1.00 [0.13, 7.75] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months 24 months | Marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months: odds ratio not estimable - no events recorded at this interval. | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Surface texture failures at 24 months 24 months | OR 1.00 [0.22, 4.56] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months 24 months | OR 10.76 [0.55, 211.78] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months 24 months | OR 4.53 [0.83, 24.65] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |