Primary study · included by 1 review

Akman and Tosun 2020

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

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 primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2022 · cited as Akman and Tosun 2020 · Tables 3 and 4

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators) · 12-60 months follow-up (4 trials; 1-5 years)	Annual failure rate (%) 1-28%	4 studies	Ungraded
Restoration failure Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins · 1 year	Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0%	1 study · 30 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.