Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36056991›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2022

Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated primary teeth: a systematic review.

S Amend, C Boutsiouki, K Bekes, D Kloukos, S Gizani, N N Lygidakis, R Frankenberger, N Krämer

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Hypomineralised second primary molars: the Würzburg concept.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

S Amend *Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Medical Centre for Dentistry, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg (Campus Giessen), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany. Stefanie.Amend@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0946-0367
C Boutsiouki *Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Medical Centre for Dentistry, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg (Campus Giessen), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.
K BekesDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria.
D KloukosDepartment of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland.
S GizaniDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, Athens School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 2 Thivon Str, 115 27, Goudi, Athens, Greece.
N N LygidakisLygidakis Dental Clinic (Private Dental Practice), 2 Papadiamantopoulou str. and Vasilissis Sofias Ave, 115 28, Athens, Greece.
R FrankenbergerDepartment of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Paediatric Dentistry, Medical Centre for Dentistry, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg (Campus Marburg), Philipps-University Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3, 35039, Marburg, Germany.
N KrämerDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, Medical Centre for Dentistry, University Medical Centre Giessen and Marburg (Campus Giessen), Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392, Giessen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically review the clinical performance of restorative materials after pulp therapy of carious primary teeth. It is part 2 of a systematic review on the clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the management of carious primary teeth supporting the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry (EAPD) guideline development.

methodsFour electronic databases were systematically searched up to December 28th, 2020. Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) on restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth after pulp therapy were included. Failure rate, annual failure rate (AFR) and reasons for failure were recorded. Studies were sorted by restorative materials. The Cochrane Risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0) was used for quality assessment.

resultsAfter identification of 1685 articles and screening of 41 papers from EAPD review group 1, 5 RCTs were included. Restored primary molars with pulpotomy presented the following AFRs: composite resin (CR) 0%, preformed metal crowns (PMCs) 2.4-2.5%, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement combined with CR 3.8%, compomer 8.9%, and amalgam 14.3%. Maxillary primary incisors receiving pulpectomy exhibited AFRs of 0-2.3% for composite strip crowns (CSCs) depending on the post chosen. Reasons for failure were secondary caries, poor marginal adaptation, loss of retention and fracture of restoration. All studies were classified as high risk of bias. Meta-analyses were not feasible given the clinical/methodological heterogeneity amongst studies.

conclusionConsidering any limitations of this review, CR and PMCs can be recommended for primary molars after pulpotomy, and CSCs for primary incisors receiving pulpectomy. However, a need for further well-designed RCTs was observed.

Indexed as

Dental CariesTooth, DeciduousChildComposite ResinsDental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentGlass Ionomer CementsHumansTreatment OutcomeComposite ResinsDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer CementsCariesClinical effectivenessPrimary teethPulp therapyRestorative materialsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36056991
PMCPMC9637617

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.