Primary study · included by 1 review

Alves dos Santos et al. 2010

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 Alves dos Santos et al. 2010 · Tables 3 and 4

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC · 1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995)	Annual failure rate (%) 29.9	1 study · 37 participants	Ungraded
Restoration failure Resin-modified GIC vs Compomer and composite resin · 4 years	Annual failure rate (%) compomer 4.2%; RMGIC 7.3%; composite resin 6.9%	1 study · 48 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.