RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: This umbrella review comprehensively appraised the evidence on the use of compomers in comparison to other dental filling materials for restorative treatment of decayed primary teeth. DATA: The literature search was conducted based on the question: "Is the use of compomers as a dental filling material more successful in the restorative treatment of decayed primary teeth than other dental filling materials?" No language restriction was applied and systematic reviews published up to May 2023 were included. The ROBIS tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews. Data were extracted for narrative synthesis, considering the restoration failure/success outcomes. SEARCH: Online search was conducted in three databases (PubMed/Medline, Embase and Cochrane library). STUDY SELECTION: The electronic search yielded a total of 779 publications. Finally, 18 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review. Four systematic reviews presented a low risk of bias, 11 presented an unclear risk of bias and three presented a high risk of bias. Most systematic reviews presenting low risk of bias reported no difference in the success rates of compomers compared to other dental filling materials used for restoration of decayed primary teeth. Studies that found a significant difference or that made clear recommendations towards the use of compomers were commonly rated with a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Compomers are similar to other dental filling materials for the placement of direct restorations in primary teeth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this umbrella review indicate a similar clinical performance of compomers compared to other materials containing a resin component for direct restoration in primary teeth. Therefore, the choice of restorative material will depend on multiple factors, such as clinician's skills/preferences, patients' wishes, costs, and cavity type/location.