Primary study · included by 1 review

Success rate of calcium hydroxide pulpotomy in primary molars restored with amalgam and stainless steel crowns

Sonmez and Duruturk 2010 · Sonmez D., Duruturk L. · British Dental Journal · 2010

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.446journal-article

Trial PICO

Not extracted yet. Trial-level population, intervention, comparator, outcomes and design will appear here after the trial extraction run. Until then, the reviews below describe the study.

Results

Not extracted yet. Per-trial results (events, means, effect and weight as each review's forest plot reports them) will appear here after the trial extraction run.

Included by

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2022 · cited as Sonmez and Duruturk 2010 · Table 2; Reference 54 (Sonmez D, Duruturk L. Br Dent J. 2010;208(9):E18)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Restoration failure Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type · 1 year	Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.3	1 study · 54 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) · 1 year	AFR 2.4	1 study · 83 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) · 1 year	AFR 14.3	1 study · 83 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.