Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM35819627
Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.
Amend S, Boutsiouki C, Bekes K, et al. · European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022 · PubMed · doi:10.1007/s40368-022-00725-7
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
46
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
2
Included studies
53
linked below
No studies 2 · 4.3%Ungraded 44 · 95.7%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 (any sex/age) with previously unrestored carious lesions in primary teeth treated with a restorative approach | 2,927 children (aged 1.5-11 years) with 5,892 restored primary teeth across 29 RCTs (n=29) |
| Intervention | Restorative materials (compomer, composite, GIC, RMGIC, metal-reinforced GIC, bio-active materials, amalgam, preformed metal/zirconia/composite crowns) and/or techniques and degrees of caries removal (selective vs complete), placed in primary dentition | Amalgam; conventional/metal-reinforced/resin-modified/high-viscosity GIC; glass carbomer; compomer; hybrid and bulk-fill composite resin; zirconia, composite strip and preformed metal (Hall) crowns; ART techniques (n=29) |
| Comparison | Another restorative material and/or another caries-removal technique or degree | Head-to-head other restorative materials or techniques (material vs material; technique vs technique) |
| Outcomes | Primary: treatment failure (modified USPHS criteria) and restoration quality (surface roughness, color match, marginal integrity, integrity, proximal contact, change of sensitivity, hypersensitivity, radiographic assessment); crown failure criteria. Secondary: time to failure/re-treatment, discomfort, patient/carer perceptions, and impact of clinical factors | Treatment failure / annual failure rate (all 29 studies); reasons for failure (secondary caries, marginal adaptation, fracture, loss of retention) |
| Study designs | Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) | 29 RCTs (17 split-mouth, 12 parallel-group); no non-randomized studies; 0 studies in quantitative synthesis (n=29) |
| Timing | Follow-up of at least 12 months | Follow-up 12-60 months |
Search date: December 28, 2020. Databases: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Library, LILACS; plus hand search of reference lists
Questions and results
Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators)
Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-60 months follow-up (4 trials; 1-5 years) Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Amalgam); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 1-28% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0% | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC
Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-60 months (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean) Conventional GIC had an annual failure rate of 7.6-16.6% (2 RCTs) and failed more than amalgam in one trial; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Glass-ionomer cements); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 7.6-16.6% | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year · Primary incisors Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 3.3% and 15%. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC
Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995) Metal-reinforced GIC had a high annual failure rate (29.9%) in a single RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Glass-ionomer cements); Table 4 (Kilpatrick 1995) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 29.9 | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 4 years · Class I and II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated by arm. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 4.2%; RMGIC 7.3%; composite resin 6.9% | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Composite resin
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 32% and 12%. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 17.5%; composite resin 6.2% | 1 study · 43 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-48 months Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years RMGIC had an annual failure rate of 1.9-16.9% (4 RCTs), lower than amalgam and similar to compomer/composite; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Glass-ionomer cements); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 1.9-16.9% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC
Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-36 months 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). Source: Abstract; Results (Glass-ionomer cements); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 2.9-25.6% | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1.5 years Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; the 7-second etching arm had a lower tabulated failure rate. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Fuji IX vs HVGIC Amalgomer CR
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · ART; Class I and II No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 9.0%; Amalgomer CR 4.0% (cumulative) | 1 study · 100 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12 months (El-Housseiny 2019) Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years Glass carbomer had very high failure rates (up to 46.2%) in a single RCT, far worse than composite resin or RMGIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Glass carbomer); Table 4 (El-Housseiny 2019) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) up to 46.2% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified GIC vs Composite resin
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 16% failure. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 8.4%; composite resin 8.4% | 1 study · 55 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-30 months Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years Compomer had an annual failure rate of 0-14.7% (7 RCTs), comparable to amalgam/RMGIC/composite and better than high-viscosity GIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Compomer); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 0-14.7% | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Resin-modified GIC
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates favored resin-modified GIC. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 28.0%; RMGIC 16.9% | 1 study · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-48 months Population: Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years Composite resin (hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9%) performed comparably to or better than most alternatives across 11 RCTs; evidence is of low to unclear quality (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Composite resin); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9% | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Zirconia crown vs Composite strip crown (filled with hybrid composite)
Population: Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12 months (Alaki 2020) Zirconia crowns failed less than composite strip crowns (3.3% vs 15% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Crowns); Table 4 (Alaki 2020) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 0%; bulk-fill composite resin 0% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crown placed by the Hall technique (PMC/HT) vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment
Population: Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 2.5 years / 30 months (Santamaria 2017) Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Abstract; Results (Crowns); Discussion; Table 4 (Santamaria 2017) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7% | 1 study · 169 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; glass carbomer had the highest tabulated failure range. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 1.9-7.5%; glass carbomer 5.8-46.2%; composite resin 2.1% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin vs HVGIC
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2 years · ART; Class I and II No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 5.9%; composite resin 6.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 219 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 12-48 months · Restorative technique (ART) Population: 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). Source: Abstract; Results (Restorative materials used for ART); Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 1.2-37.1% | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)
Population: Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 18 months (Lenzi 2017) · Adhesive strategy (etch-and-rinse vs self-etch) Etch-and-rinse adhesion failed more than self-etch (19.5% vs 7.0% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Results (Composite resin); Table 4 (Lenzi 2017) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 2 years · ART; Class I and II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; cavity disinfectant did not affect success in the review narrative. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) without disinfectant 9.1%; with disinfectant 11.1% (cumulative) | 1 study · 126 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin)
Population: Children with Class-I carious lesions in primary molars, no pulp therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 18 months (Oliveira 2008) · Cavity margin (bevel vs no bevel) A beveled margin lowered composite resin failure (1.8% vs 3.5% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Results (Composite resin); Table 4 (Oliveira 2008) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described comparable survival. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) Compoglass F 4.3%; Twinky Star 7.0% | 1 study · 98 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching
Population: Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) 18 months (Cavalheiro 2020) · Dentine etching time (7 s vs 15 s) Etching dentine for 7 s rather than 15 s lowered bulk-fill composite failure (5.8% vs 16.9% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Results (Composite resin); Table 4 (Cavalheiro 2020) · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Restoration failure 4 years · ART; Class I Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) Vitro Molar 3.5%; Ketac Molar Easymix 5.8% | 1 study · 25 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; compomer had more favorable retention in the review narrative. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 3.6%; HVGIC 25.6% and 13.4% | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class 12-48 months · Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II) Population: Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); low quality of evidence (ungraded). Source: Results (Class-I vs Class-II restorations); Discussion · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART) | NR | Ungraded |
New restorative materials with bio-active molecules (bio-active materials, BM) vs Any restorative material or technique
Population: Children with carious primary teeth (no pulp therapy)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Not applicable (no eligible studies) No eligible RCTs assessed new bio-active restorative materials in carious primary teeth; this is an evidence gap identified by the review. Source: Results (New biomaterials); Methods (PICO(S) construct) · same question in other reviews | The search retrieved no randomized controlled trials on the clinical effectiveness of new bio-active restorative materials for carious primary teeth. | 0 studies | No studies |
Restoration failure 3 years · ART; Class II Population: Children with carious primary teeth No comparative effect estimate was reported; bilayer placement and nanofilled coating were described as improving survival. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) 32.4%, 13.7%, 18.7%, 13.4% by insertion/coating arm | 1 study · 208 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs Composite resin
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · Class I, II, III, and V No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 1.7% failure. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 1.7%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Compomer
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described similar clinical performance. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 1.0%; compomer 1.0% | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional GIC vs Metal-reinforced GIC
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1.5 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; metal-reinforced GIC had the highest failure rate. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 16.6%; MRGIC 29.9% | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Nanoionomer resin-modified GIC vs HVGIC
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · ART; Class I No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 2.0%; HVGIC 12.8% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC vs Composite resin
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 3 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; composite resin outperformed HVGIC in the review narrative. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 6.1%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse adhesive vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesive
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1.5 years No comparative effect estimate was reported; etch-and-rinse had a higher tabulated failure rate. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Ketac Molar vs Conventional GIC Vitro Molar
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · ART; Class I, II, III, and V No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 17.8%; GIC 26.6% | 1 study · 244 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 3 years · ART; Class I and II No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 17.5%; compomer 17.5%; glass carbomer 28.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 568 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Fuji IX Gold Label vs HVGIC Vitro Molar and Maxxion R
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2 years · ART; Class I No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 14.7%; Vitro Molar 31.8%; Maxxion R 37.1% | 1 study · 150 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin without beveled cavity margin
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1.5 years · Class I No comparative effect estimate was reported; no bevel had twice the failure rate in the review narrative. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Hall-technique preformed metal crown vs Non-restorative caries treatment and compomer
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 2.5 years · Class II No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) PMC Hall technique 3.1%; compomer 14.7% | 1 study · 169 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Conventional GIC
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 5 years · Class I and II No comparative effect estimate was reported; conventional GIC had a higher tabulated failure rate. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 4.4%; conventional GIC 7.6% | 1 study · 76 participants | Ungraded |
GIC with cavity conditioner vs GIC without cavity conditioner
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Restoration failure 1 year · ART; Class I No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review states cavity conditioner did not improve success. Source: Table 4 · same question in other reviews | Annual failure rate (%) with conditioner 26%; without conditioner 33% | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches
Population: Children with carious primary teeth
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical effectiveness At least 12 months No eligible randomized clinical trials of bio-active restorative materials were found. Source: New biomaterials · same question in other reviews | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
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 | Partial Yes | yes |
| 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 | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: N/A · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: N/A | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | N/A | N/A | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | N/A | N/A | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Low | Low | yes |
Included primary studies 53
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ersin et al. 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 et al. 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | 2 other reviews | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Akman & Tosun 2020 Clinical evaluation of bulk-fill resins and glass ionomer restorative materials: A 1-year follow-up randomized clinical trial in children DOI:10.4103/njcp.njcp_519_19 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alaki et al. 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alaki et al. 2020 Comparing zirconia to anterior strip crowns in primary anterior teeth in children: a randomized clinical trial. PMID:33167954 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dermata et al. 2018 Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised… DOI:10.1007/s40368-018-0371-7 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ersin et al. 2006 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hse & Wei 1997 CLINICAL EVALUATION OF COMPOMER IN PRIMARY TEETH: 1-YEAR RESULTS DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0366 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kavvadia et al. 2004 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oliveira et al. 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yassen 2009 matched by author and year (probable) | 1 other review | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Akman and Tosun 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alves dos Santos et al. 2010 Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-Month results DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2010.02.004 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Alves dos Santos et al. 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Barr-Agholme et al. 1991 A two-year clinical study of light-cured composite and amalgam restorations in primary molars DOI:10.1016/s0109-5641(05)80020-x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Barr-Agholme et al. 1991 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cavalheiro et al. 2020 Shortening of etching time of the dentin in primary teeth restorations: a randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0081 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Cavalheiro et al. 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Deepa and Shobha 2010 A clinical evaluation of two glass ionomer cements in primary molars using atraumatic restorative treatment technique in India: 1 year… DOI:10.1111/j.1365-263x.2010.01067.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Deepa and Shobha 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dermata et al. 2018 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Dutta et al. 2001 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ehlers et al. 2019 DOI:10.3290/j.jad.a42519 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ehlers et al. 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| El-Housseiny et al. 2019 DOI:10.3290/j.qi.a42573 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| El-Housseiny et al. 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ertugrul et al. 2010 Comparison of Conventional versus Colored Compomers for Class II Restorations in Primary Molars: A 12-Month Clinical Study DOI:10.1159/000273077 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ertugrul et al. 2010 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Faustino-Silva & Figueiredo 2019 Atraumatic restorative treatment—ART in early childhood caries in babies: 4 years of randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1007/s00784-019-02800-8 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Faustino-Silva and Figueiredo 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gok Baba et al. 2021 One‐year clinical evaluation of two high‐viscosity glass‐ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars DOI:10.1111/adj.12802 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gok Baba et al. 2021 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hesse et al. 2016 Bilayer technique and nano‐filled coating increase success of approximal<scp>ART</scp>restorations: a randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1111/ipd.12194 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hesse et al. 2016 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Hse and Wei 1997 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kilpatrick et al. 1995 The use of a reinforced glass-ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trial DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.4808867 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kilpatrick et al. 1995 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Konde et al. 2012 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Konde et al. 2012 Clinical evaluation of a new art material: Nanoparticulated resin-modified glass ionomer cement. PMID:24478966 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kupietzky et al. 2019 Long-term clinical performance of heat-cured high-viscosity glass ionomer class II restorations versus resin-based composites in primary… DOI:10.1007/s40368-019-00423-x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Kupietzky et al. 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Lenzi et al. 2017 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Moura et al. 2020 Does low-cost GIC have the same survival rate as high-viscosity GIC in atraumatic restorative treatments? A RCT DOI:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2019.vol33.0125 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Moura et al. 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Olegario et al. 2019 Glass carbomer and compomer for ART restorations: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial DOI:10.1007/s00784-018-2593-9 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Olegario et al. 2019 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Olegario et al. 2020 Is it worth using low-cost glass ionomer cements for occlusal ART restorations in primary molars? 2-year survival and cost analysis of a… DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103446 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Olegario et al. 2020 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Oliveira et al. 2008 Split mouth randomized controlled clinical trial of beveled cavity preparations in primary molars: an 18-Month follow up DOI:10.1016/j.jdent.2008.05.006 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Santamaria et al. 2017 Alternative Caries Management Options for Primary Molars: 2.5-Year Outcomes of a Randomised Clinical Trial DOI:10.1159/000477855 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Santamaria et al. 2017 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Welbury et al. 1991 The 5-year results of a clinical trial comparing a glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement restoration with an amalgam restoration DOI:10.1038/sj.bdj.4807465 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Welbury et al. 1991 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Restoration failure | 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).