evidence/gaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Deepa and Shobha 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 Deepa and Shobha 2010 · Tables 3 and 4
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Restoration failure
HVGIC Fuji IX vs HVGIC Amalgomer CR · 1 year
Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 9.0%; Amalgomer CR 4.0% (cumulative)1 study · 100 participantsUngraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate)
Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC · 12 months (El-Housseiny 2019)
Annual failure rate (%) up to 46.2%1 study · 50 participantsUngraded

1 including review in total.