Primary study · included by 1 review

Dutta et al. 2001

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 Dutta et al. 2001 · Table 3; Table 4; Ref 20

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Restoration failure Amalgam vs Resin-modified GIC · 1 year	Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 28.0%; RMGIC 16.9%	1 study · 120 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Composite resin restoration (hybrid or bulk-fill) vs Compomer, glass-ionomer/RMGIC, amalgam, or glass carbomer · 12-48 months	Annual failure rate (%) hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9%	11 studies	Ungraded

1 including review in total.