Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM32286461
Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis.
Ortiz-Ruiz Antonio J, Pérez-Guzmán Nuria, Rubio-Aparicio María, et al. · Scientific reports · 2020 · PubMed · doi:10.1038/s41598-020-63497-4
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
105
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
17
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 105 · 100%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| Population | Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations; published and unpublished studies eligible; excluded permanent teeth, Class I/III/IV/V, amalgam/cermet/stainless-steel-crown-only studies, reviews, case reports, in vitro and observational studies, and follow-up other than 24 months | 16 articles included (published 1995-2015); 30 independent study-units extracted as units of analysis |
| Intervention | Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite resin, compomer, giomer, glass ionomer cement, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich), grouped into five categories | Five material categories analysed for retention: resin + total-etch (k=7), resin + self-etch (k=8), RMGIC (k=5), HVGIC (k=6), open sandwich (k=1) |
| Comparison | Between-material / between-condition comparison (single-arm success rates contrasted via moderator analyses; no dedicated comparator group) | Materials/techniques contrasted via weighted ANOVA and meta-regression moderator analyses (retention reported in main text; other outcomes in Supplementary File 4) |
| Outcomes | Success (survival) at 24 months for four outcomes: retention, marginal integrity, anatomic form, and absence of recurrent caries | Pooled 24-month success rates: retention 0.879 (k=27), marginal integrity 0.898 (k=27), anatomic form 0.901 (k=24), absence of recurrent caries 0.909 (k=30); all I2 > 77% |
| Study designs | RCTs, non-randomized controlled trials, and uncontrolled (non-randomized) trials | 7 RCTs, 5 non-randomized controlled trials, 4 uncontrolled trials (16 articles; 30 study-units) |
| Timing | 24 months follow-up | 24 months |
Search date: May 2019 (search covered 1985 to May 2019). Databases: PubMed; MEDLINE; SciELO; Embase; Scopus; Web of Science (WOS); LILACS; BBO; plus hand-search and reference-list screening
Questions and results
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses)
Population: Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Retention success rate 24 months · Rubber dam isolation: Yes For the Rubber dam isolation: Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.931 (95% CI 0.834-0.973; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.931 [0.834, 0.973] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate 24 months · Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) After trim-and-fill adjustment the marginal integrity success rate was 0.881 (95% CI 0.832-0.916; ungraded), a negligible change. Source: Results (Analysis of publication bias); Supplementary File 3 (funnel plots) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.881 [0.832, 0.916] | 32 (27 observed + 5 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Use of coat: Yes For the Use of coat: Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.904 (95% CI 0.474-0.989; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.904 [0.474, 0.989] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Random assignment: No/Incorrect For the Random assignment: No/Incorrect subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.897 (95% CI 0.792-0.952; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.897 [0.792, 0.952] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Random assignment: Correct For the Random assignment: Correct subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.851 (95% CI 0.716-0.929; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.851 [0.716, 0.929] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Dentist experience: Experienced For the Dentist experience: Experienced subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.895 (95% CI 0.828-0.938; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.895 [0.828, 0.938] | 25 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate 24 months The pooled 24-month anatomic form success rate was 0.901 (95% CI 0.845-0.938; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Mean success rates and heterogeneity); Supplementary File 3 (forest plot) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.901 [0.845, 0.938] | 24 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion For the Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.824 (95% CI 0.672-0.914; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.824 [0.672, 0.914] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) For the Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.649 (95% CI 0.488-0.783; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.649 [0.488, 0.783] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months Tooth-coloured proximal restorations in primary molars had a pooled 24-month retention success rate of 0.879 (95% CI 0.803-0.928; ungraded), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 90%). Source: Table 2; Fig. 2 (forest plot); Results (Mean success rates and heterogeneity) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.879 [0.803, 0.928] | 27 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Use of cavity conditioner: Yes For the Use of cavity conditioner: Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.826 (95% CI 0.605-0.937; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.826 [0.605, 0.937] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) After trim-and-fill adjustment the retention success rate fell only slightly to 0.839 (95% CI 0.764-0.893), so publication bias was judged negligible (ungraded). Source: Results (Analysis of publication bias); Fig. 3 (funnel plot) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.839 [0.764, 0.893] | 34 (27 observed + 7 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Cavity form: Conventional cavity design For the Cavity form: Conventional cavity design subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.936 (95% CI 0.895-0.961; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.936 [0.895, 0.961] | 19 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) For the Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.956 (95% CI 0.865-0.986; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.956 [0.865, 0.986] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Use of cavity conditioner: No For the Use of cavity conditioner: No subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.973 (95% CI 0.695-0.998; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.973 [0.695, 0.998] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes For the Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.805 (95% CI 0.674-0.892; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.805 [0.674, 0.892] | 16 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Reporting bias: Yes For the Reporting bias: Yes subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.935 (95% CI 0.726-0.987; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.935 [0.726, 0.987] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Reporting bias: No For the Reporting bias: No subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.867 (95% CI 0.779-0.924; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.867 [0.779, 0.924] | 24 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No For the Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.934 (95% CI 0.859-0.971; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.934 [0.859, 0.971] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Material type: Open sandwich restoration For the Material type: Open sandwich restoration subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.950 (95% CI 0.639-0.995; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.950 [0.639, 0.995] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion For the Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.949 (95% CI 0.868-0.981; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.949 [0.868, 0.981] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Study design: Randomized controlled trial For the Study design: Randomized controlled trial subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.854 (95% CI 0.718-0.931; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.854 [0.718, 0.931] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate 24 months · Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) 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. Source: Results (Analysis of publication bias); Supplementary File 3 (funnel plots) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.878 [0.828, 0.915] | 38 (30 observed + 8 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Dentist experience: Non-experienced For the Dentist experience: Non-experienced subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.554 (95% CI 0.168-0.885; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.554 [0.168, 0.885] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial For the Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.899 (95% CI 0.768-0.961; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.899 [0.768, 0.961] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Rubber dam isolation: No For the Rubber dam isolation: No subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.847 (95% CI 0.726-0.920; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.847 [0.726, 0.920] | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate 24 months The pooled 24-month marginal integrity success rate was 0.898 (95% CI 0.852-0.931; ungraded). Source: Table 2; Results (Mean success rates and heterogeneity); Supplementary File 3 (forest plot) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.898 [0.852, 0.931] | 27 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate 24 months · Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) After trim-and-fill adjustment the anatomic form success rate was 0.876 (95% CI 0.817-0.919; ungraded), a negligible change. Source: Results (Analysis of publication bias); Supplementary File 3 (funnel plots) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.876 [0.817, 0.919] | 29 (24 observed + 5 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) For the Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.671 (95% CI 0.447-0.838; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.671 [0.447, 0.838] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Use of coat: No For the Use of coat: No subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.854 (95% CI 0.609-0.956; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.854 [0.609, 0.956] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Study design: Noncontrolled trial For the Study design: Noncontrolled trial subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.892 (95% CI 0.614-0.977; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.892 [0.614, 0.977] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate 24 months The pooled 24-month absence-of-recurrent-caries success rate was 0.909 (95% CI 0.865-0.939; ungraded), the highest of the four outcomes. Source: Table 2; Results (Mean success rates and heterogeneity); Supplementary File 3 (forest plot) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.909 [0.865, 0.939] | 30 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Financial source: Private or mixed For the Financial source: Private or mixed subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.807 (95% CI 0.482-0.949; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.807 [0.482, 0.949] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Retention success rate 24 months · Financial source: Public For the Financial source: Public subgroup, the 24-month retention success rate was 0.909 (95% CI 0.785-0.965; ungraded). Source: Table 4 (weighted ANOVAs of retention success rates); Results (Analysis of moderator variables) · same question in other reviews | Proportion 0.909 [0.785, 0.965] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Comparison
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) | Proportion 0.831 [0.692, 0.915] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Dentist experience: Non-experienced | Proportion 0.921 [0.711, 0.982] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Reporting bias: No | Proportion 0.892 [0.829, 0.932] | 21 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.844 [0.731, 0.916] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes | Proportion 0.857 [0.785, 0.908] | 16 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) | Proportion 0.743 [0.553, 0.871] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Random assignment: No/Incorrect | Proportion 0.899 [0.828, 0.943] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | Proportion 0.927 [0.843, 0.968] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Use of cavity conditioner: No | Proportion 0.963 [0.779, 0.995] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Study design: Noncontrolled trial | Proportion 0.950 [0.867, 0.982] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes | Proportion 0.859 [0.794, 0.906] | 18 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.865 [0.759, 0.929] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.924 [0.847, 0.963] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.919 [0.821, 0.966] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Use of coat: No | Proportion 0.916 [0.803, 0.966] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Dentist experience: Experienced | Proportion 0.908 [0.861, 0.941] | 28 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Use of cavity conditioner: No | Proportion 0.908 [0.824, 0.954] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Use of coat: Yes | Proportion 0.785 [0.608, 0.896] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Use of coat: Yes | Proportion 0.804 [0.595, 0.919] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Cavity form: Conventional cavity design | Proportion 0.932 [0.889, 0.959] | 20 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.855 [0.763, 0.914] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Study design: Randomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.913 [0.849, 0.951] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) | Proportion 0.749 [0.606, 0.853] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | Proportion 0.934 [0.848, 0.973] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Financial source: Private or mixed | Proportion 0.850 [0.678, 0.939] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No | Proportion 0.958 [0.924, 0.978] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Use of cavity conditioner: Yes | Proportion 0.892 [0.796, 0.946] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Material type: Open sandwich restoration | Proportion 0.940 [0.695, 0.991] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Use of cavity conditioner: Yes | Proportion 0.857 [0.737, 0.928] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Study design: Noncontrolled trial | Proportion 0.942 [0.837, 0.981] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) | Proportion 0.759 [0.586, 0.875] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Rubber dam isolation: No | Proportion 0.899 [0.833, 0.941] | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Financial source: Public | Proportion 0.919 [0.846, 0.959] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Rubber dam isolation: Yes | Proportion 0.911 [0.825, 0.957] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Rubber dam isolation: Yes | Proportion 0.883 [0.782, 0.941] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Use of cavity conditioner: Yes | Proportion 0.896 [0.779, 0.955] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) | Proportion 0.954 [0.879, 0.983] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Random assignment: No/Incorrect | Proportion 0.895 [0.817, 0.942] | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.894 [0.771, 0.954] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Material type: Open sandwich restoration | Proportion 0.950 [0.677, 0.994] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.916 [0.848, 0.956] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Cavity form: Conventional cavity design | Proportion 0.921 [0.877, 0.950] | 19 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Financial source: Public | Proportion 0.895 [0.822, 0.941] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes | Proportion 0.852 [0.760, 0.912] | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Use of coat: No | Proportion 0.916 [0.808, 0.966] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Random assignment: Correct | Proportion 0.909 [0.837, 0.951] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Study design: Noncontrolled trial | Proportion 0.950 [0.863, 0.983] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.926 [0.829, 0.970] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Random assignment: Correct | Proportion 0.912 [0.809, 0.962] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Use of coat: No | Proportion 0.935 [0.862, 0.971] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Reporting bias: Yes | Proportion 0.935 [0.767, 0.984] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Reporting bias: Yes | Proportion 0.964 [0.828, 0.994] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Use of cavity conditioner: No | Proportion 0.965 [0.787, 0.995] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Financial source: Private or mixed | Proportion 0.851 [0.679, 0.939] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Rubber dam isolation: No | Proportion 0.899 [0.829, 0.942] | 16 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Use of coat: Yes | Proportion 0.801 [0.619, 0.909] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Reporting bias: No | Proportion 0.893 [0.843, 0.929] | 25 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Study design: Randomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.907 [0.806, 0.958] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Random assignment: No/Incorrect | Proportion 0.888 [0.819, 0.933] | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Financial source: Private or mixed | Proportion 0.875 [0.671, 0.959] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion | Proportion 0.898 [0.796, 0.952] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Reporting bias: Yes | Proportion 0.963 [0.847, 0.992] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) | Proportion 0.853 [0.751, 0.918] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Financial source: Public | Proportion 0.900 [0.788, 0.956] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No | Proportion 0.943 [0.886, 0.972] | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Anatomic form success rate Cavity form: Conventional cavity design | Proportion 0.929 [0.889, 0.956] | 18 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Reporting bias: No | Proportion 0.902 [0.853, 0.935] | 27 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No | Proportion 0.938 [0.891, 0.966] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Study design: Randomized controlled trial | Proportion 0.907 [0.838, 0.948] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
Marginal integrity success rate Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) | Proportion 0.831 [0.716, 0.905] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Absence of recurrent caries success rate Random assignment: Correct | Proportion 0.914 [0.849, 0.953] | 15 studies | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | No | no |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | NRSI: No · RCT: No | RCT: No · NRSI: No | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: Yes | NRSI: Yes · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | No | No | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |
Included primary studies 17
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ersin 2006 A clinical evaluation of resin-based composite and glass ionomer cement restorations placed in primary teeth using the ART approach DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0087 | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ersin 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | 2 other reviews | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Andersson-Wenckert 2006 Flowable resin composite as a class II restorative in primary molars: A two-year clinical evaluation DOI:10.1080/00016350600788245 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Atieh 2008 Stainless steel crown versus modified open‐sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2‐year randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263x.2007.00900.x | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kavvadia 2004 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Sengul 2015 Clinical Evaluation of Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth Class II Lesions DOI:10.17796/1053-4628-39.4.315 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alves dos Santos 2009 A randomized trial of resin-based restorations in class I and class II beveled preparations in primary molars DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.2009.0129 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Andersson-Wenckert 1995 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Andersson-Wenckert 1997 Durability of a Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin (Compomer) in Primary Molars: A Multicenter Study DOI:10.3109/00016359709115424 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Attin 2000 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Carvalho 2010 Two years survival rate of Class II ART restorations in primary molars using two ways to avoid saliva contamination DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263x.2010.01060.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Espelid 1999 Clinical behaviour of glass ionomer restorations in primary teeth DOI:10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00004-4 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Folkesson 1999 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Folkesson 1999 Some Recent Work on the Louse: (Section of Dermatology). PMID:19992319 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kotsanos 2011 Evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer serving both as indirect pulp therapy and as restorative material for primary molars DOI:10.1007/bf03262801 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lo 2001 Clinical Investigation of Two Glass–Ionomer Restoratives Used with the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment Approach in China: Two–Years Results DOI:10.1159/000047490 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Topaloglu-Ak 2009 Two years survival rate of class II composite resin restorations prepared by ART with and without a chemomechanical caries removal gel in… PMID:19101739 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match).