Primary study · included by 1 review

Eshghi et al. 2013

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 Eshghi et al. 2013 · Table 2; Reference 23

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) · 1 year	AFR 2.3	1 study · 54 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) · 1 year	AFR 2.2	1 study · 54 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) · 1 year	AFR 0	1 study · 54 participants	Ungraded

1 including review in total.