Same question across reviews · CL0207
intervention :: Operative/pulp treatment -> Cost/economic
ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
2
Questions
2
current versions
GRADE rated
0
Review overlap (CCA)
NR
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · Primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated. | 1 study | Ungraded |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Costs for the use of different treatment interventions · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane | No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome. | NR | No studies |