Primary study · included by 1 review

Gok Baba et al. 2021

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 Gok Baba et al. 2021 · Tables 3 and 4

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Restoration failure Compomer vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock · 1 year	Annual failure rate (%) compomer 3.6%; HVGIC 25.6% and 13.4%	1 study · 63 participants	Ungraded
Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration · 12-48 months	Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART)	NR	Ungraded

1 including review in total.