Primary study · included by 1 review

Cehreli et al. 2006

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 lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2022 · cited as Cehreli et al. 2006 · Table 2; Reference 12

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) · 2 years	AFR 8.9	1 study · 84 participants	Ungraded
Restoration failure Composite resin vs Compomer · 2 years	Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 0	1 study · 84 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Compomer (C) vs Composite resin (CR) · 2 years	AFR 0	1 study · 84 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.