Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Stainless steel crown versus modified open‐sandwich restorations for primary molars: a 2‐year randomized clinical trial

Atieh 2008 · ATIEH MOMEN · International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · 2008

doi:10.1111/j.1365-263x.2007.00900.xjournal-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

Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2020 · cited as Atieh 2008 · Table 1; Reference 27

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

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 Atieh 2008 · Table 2; Reference 5 (Atieh M. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2008;18(5):325-332)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Restoration failure Preformed metal crowns vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement plus composite resin · 2 years	Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 2.5	1 study · 87 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration) · 2 years	AFR 2.5	1 study · 87 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration) · 2 years	AFR 3.8	1 study · 87 participants	Ungraded

2 including reviews in total.