Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Alaki 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

Zirconia Crowns for Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2022 · cited as Alaki 2020 · Table 2; Reference 57

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

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2022 · cited as Alaki et al. 2020 · Tables 3 and 4

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC · 12-60 months (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean)	Annual failure rate (%) 7.6-16.6%	2 studies	Ungraded
Restoration failure Zirconia crown vs Composite strip crown · 1 year	Annual failure rate (%) zirconia crown 3.3%; composite strip crown 15.0%	1 study · 32 participants	Ungraded

2 including reviews in total.